I thought I had fixed the "user @ node" problem in 1.5g but maybe I didn't really. You should realize that 'username <userid@node>' is a very rare form of RFC822 address indeed. Only BITNET uses it. The general rule is 'userid@node (name)' or 'userid@node name' or '(name) userid@node (moreblurb)' -- when it doesn't come as a X.400 + RFC822 + RFC733 mix like '@somenode:[log in to unmask] The 'user @ node' problem will get fixed, don't worry; however what am I to do if I get '@WISCVM:ERIC@FRECP11'? Want me to translate it to 'ERIC@FRECP11@WISCVM'? That reminds me of a rejection notice mailed by some UUCP mailer which said "To: ERIC@FRECP11, eric@ERIC@FRECP11", and which got rejected by our mailer... :-) The contents of the "From:" field are not very important. If the address is so messed up that your average MAILER or MAIL package is unable to understand it, there is no point in adding fifty lines of kludges for special cases to have LISTSERV try to reformat it considering the 4-5 different mailing address standards that are likely to have been mixed in the address :-) What is important is that the "To:" field be ok. I've been off for a few days and the FRORS31-FRHEC11 link is now down with very little hope that it will come up before tomorrow. I don't know when it came down, and I may well have missed a bunch of LSTSRV-L mail still waiting at CEARN to be sent. So don't worry if this message comes a little out of synch... Eric