> UUCP can be a valid userid on a non-UNIX system. Does UUCP put any reasonable > text in the message subject to hint that it is a rejection message? UUCP node > have been a MAJOR source of pain in the past because their rejection messages > are made to not look like them. I have never seen a standard or widely-held convention which suggested what rejection messages were supposed to look like. I have never seen a standard or widely-held convention which attributed any particular syntax or semantics to the contents of the Subject: header other than commentary. How can UUCP rejection messages not look like rejection messages when there is no standard or widely-held convention for what a rejection message is supposed to look like? UUCP mailers, like Internet mailers, send rejection messages to the return address in the envelope. This address will have been derived from the MAIL FROM:<> address in the BSMTP envelope at the gateway. The proper, standard solution is to avoid having the rejection note sent back to the list altogether by including an envelope return address which points elsewhere. LISTSERV, unfortunately, does not follow this standard practice. Instead it sends messages with the envelope address pointing back at the list and impliments a bag of kludges to try to separate the rejection messages out (though, to be fair, I also understand that this is forced on LISTSERV by another bag of kludges, the Crosswell mailer). I know this not because I am any sort of mail expert, but rather because (a) I can see the message envelope return addresses on this machine and can see that Internet mailing lists are done differently than LISTSERV lists, and (b) it has been mentioned so many times here and elsewhere (just today I saw several notes complaining about this on the TCP-IP list) that I can recite the liturgy of BITNET mail problems almost by heart. Thus, expecting every UUCP site through which a message from LISTSERV might ever pass to modify their rejection notices to suit LISTSERV, and/or complaining about them when they send rejection messages that don't suit LISTSERV, to make up for your defective MTA is more than a little parochial. The real solutions, in order of preference, are (1) fix the damn mailer, (2) fix the damn mailer, (3) fix the damn mailer, or (4) add yet another kludge to LISTSERV to detect this week's problem rejection message. Want to bet which fix is applied, if any? I have a prediction, that by 1990 the only machines running LISTSERV will be otherwise unused 3090's since the reject filter will be so large that only these machines will have enough CPU to move the mail. And, at the same time, every VM site will *still* be using the same broken version of the Crosswell mailer that they're running now (if they even understand BSMTP by then), and LISTSERV will still be sending stuff out with the wrong envelope address. Bizarre. Dennis Ferguson University of Toronto