I just love quoting myself.  Actually, I seem to send my email
before I finish my thought.  Anyway, I wrote:
>
>Hmmm...  So what we really need is for each of the new remailers to
>have two subscription lists--the AC remailer would have a list of
>subscribers only to the AC list, and a list of subscribers to both
>lists.  Similarly, the WC remailer would have a list of subscribers
>only to the WC list, and a list of subscribers to both.  Then, when
>messages come in that are cross-posted to both lists, they are only
>sent to the joint subscribers once, via some protocal agreed on by the
>two remailers.
>
>That could work.  The total necessary bandwidth of the two remailers
>would be the same or less than that required by the current list, and
>hopefully the workload would be split somewhat evenly between the two
>remailers via above-mentioned protocol.  People who want both sets of
>messages would only get them once, and people who choose to listen to
>only one side of the story would be able to choose to do that.
>

Let's round out this idea a little.  Both remailers would need to maintain
all 3 subscriber lists, and would have to forward un/subscription requests
to each other to keep the lists synchronized.  The protocol would be something
like this:

        Any cross-posted messages of the form:
          a) To: vanagon@lenti, newAClist@where_ever   or...
          b) To: vanagon@lenti
             cc: newAClist@where_ever
        would be mailed to the joint list by the vanagon@lenti server.

        Any cross-posted messages of the form:
          a) To: newAClist@where_ever, vanagon@lenti   or...
          b) To: newAClist@where_ever
             cc: vanagon@lenti
        would be mailed to the joint list by the newAClist@where_ever server.

Everything clear?  Anything missing?  It seems to me this is the real
goal of splitting the list: reduce the needed remailer resources, and
at the same time, avoid splitting up a very cohesive group of people.

-Rodney