In article <[log in to unmask]>, Lillian Novela
<[log in to unmask]> says:
>I would like more info on creating headers for mail messages.
>I tried "set listname shortbsmtp for *@*" with no results.
(Are you trying to change the "headers" for all subscribers or just
yourself?)
A while ago I posted this to lstown-l --
> search headers in lstown-l where sender contains pmw1 since 5/92
--> Database LSTOWN-L, 2 hits.
> print
>>> Item number 2515, dated 92/08/10 14:38:00 -- ALL
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 14:38:00 EDT
Reply-To: ListServ list owners <[log in to unmask]>
X-Sender: ListServ list owners <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Peter M. Weiss +1 814 863 1843" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: MAIL distribution options options
- - The original note follows - -
Date: 10 August 1992, 13:31:32 EDT
From: Peter M. Weiss +1 814 863 1843 PMW1 at PSUVM
Subject: MAIL distribution options options
To: lstown-l at indycms
I have done a "study" of the various mail distribution options short,
shortbsmtp, fullbsmtp, full, ietf. The following are my results using
a local test list to a local address at the Listserv 1.7c level with
options: reply-to=list, respect; X-Tags= Yes. In all caes, the Date:
field was the same format (day, dd mon yyyy hh:mm:ss zone), and the
Subject: was consistent. Neither is show here; the other headers are
show in order of their appearance.
SHORThdr
--------
Received: local mailer BITNET, one short line
Reply-to: list title <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: list title <[log in to unmask]>
From: "<names entry>" <[log in to unmask]>
to: <subscriber info> <[log in to unmask]>
SHORTBsmtp
----------
Received: local mailer BITNET local mail internet, one long line
continued
Reply-to: list title <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: list title <[log in to unmask]>
From: "<names entry>" <[log in to unmask]>
to: MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS OF LIST list <[log in to unmask]>
FULLBsmtp
---------
Received: local mailer BITNET local mail internet, one long line
continued
Received: local mailer BITNET local LISTSERV internet, one long line
continued
Message-ID: <list%yymmddhhmmssxx@internet_host>
Newsgroups: BIT.LISTSERV.list
Reply-To: list title <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: list title <[log in to unmask]>
From: "<names entry>" <[log in to unmask]>
To: MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS OF LIST list <[log in to unmask]>
FULLhdr
-------
Received: local mailer BITNET, one short line
Received: local mailer BITNET local LISTSERV internet, one long line
continued
Message-ID: <list%yymmddhhmmssxx@internet_host>
Newsgroups: BIT.LISTSERV.list
Reply-To: list title <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: list title <[log in to unmask]>
From: "<names entry>" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <subscriber info> <[log in to unmask]>
IETFhdr
-------
Received: local mailer BITNET local mail internet, one long line
continued
Received: local mailer BITNET local LISTSERV internet, one long line
continued
From: userid@node
To: list@internet_host
Message-ID: <list%yymmddhhmmssxx@internet_host>
Sender: OWNER-list@internet_host
The reason I went thru this exercise was to figure out if certain MTAs
could be tamed if headers were somehow beat into submission. My vote
(and my 2›): IETF.
/Pete
--
Peter M. Weiss | not affiliated with psuvm.psu.edu|psuvm
31 Shields Bldg -- Penn State Univ.| "Connectivity is more than a Connection"
University Park, PA USA 16802-1202 | E. Michael Staman, _The Circuit_, Apr 92
|