I am seeing behavior that looks like a bug somewhere in the system,
but I don't know if that's in Listserv, a local system or elsewhere.
 
One contributer to QUAKER-L habitually indents the text of his
messages (with blanks, not tabs, if that matters), leading to one
subscriber failing to get the message because TEXT FROM THE BODY
IS BEING TREATED AS IF IT'S ADDRESSES IN THE TO: FIELD! This leads
to an "Address too long" error.  (See below.)
 
So two questions:
* WHICH LINK in the e-mail chain is causing this behavior?
* Is the only SOLUTION TO ASK THE CONTRIBUTER TO FORMAT HIS MAIL
  DIFFERENTLY?
 
A brief example (with 'X' prepended to prevent the loopcheck, if it's
even on for LSTOWN-L) from the archives:
 
----- Example follows: ----------
XDate:         Sun, 16 Oct 1994 17:35:00 -0400
XReply-To:     BILL SAMUEL 202-260-3189 <[log in to unmask]>
XSender:       "Quaker concerns re community, spirituality,
              etc." <[log in to unmask]>
XComments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was [log in to unmask]
XFrom:         BILL SAMUEL 202-260-3189 <[log in to unmask]>
XSubject:      Subject-information goes here
 
 
          I propose that Quaker-L return to its former policy (which
          remains the policy of Quaker-P) of having an open Review list.
          That is, a list of subscribers would be available to all
          subscribers by sending a Review command to the Listserv.  Anyone
          not wanting to have their name distributed could prevent this by
          using the Conceal command.  Of course, all subscribers would know
          how to contact anyone who posted a message, regardless of whether
------ End of Example ------------
 
There's no To: header line stored in the archive, but you can see from
the delivery message that it's the last header line, and that the text
is being considered continuation lines of the addressee's address:
 
------ Delivery message follows: -------
   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
554 <@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:[log in to unmask]>... Address too long
554 <[log in to unmask]>... Address too long
554 <[log in to unmask]>... Address too long
 
   ----- Unsent message follows -----
XReturn-Path: <@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:[log in to unmask]>
XReceived: from CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU by ees1a0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1-940815-1)
        id AA10509; Mon, 17 Oct 94 00:07:56 EDT
XMessage-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
XReceived: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 2761; Mon, 17 Oct 94 00:02:05 EDT
XReceived: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6198; Mon, 17 Oct 1994 00:03:59 -0400
XDate:         Sun, 16 Oct 1994 17:35:00 -0400
XReply-To: BILL SAMUEL 202-260-3189 <[log in to unmask]>
XSender: "Quaker concerns re community, spirituality,                                    etc." <[log in to unmask]>
XComments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was [log in to unmask]
XFrom: BILL SAMUEL 202-260-3189 <[log in to unmask]>
XSubject:      Business: Review list
XTo: Multiple recipients of list QUAKER-L <[log in to unmask]>
 
 
         ,
        a list of subscribers would be available to all subscribers by sending a Review command to the Listserv.Anyone not wanting to have their name distributed could prevent this by using the Conceal command.Of course,
 
--- End of Delivery Message --------
 
(If your mail software hides the fact, this error features a line with
more than 210 characters in it, and the lines are breaking on commas,
as for addresses.)
 
Thanks,
Steve
--
Stephen W. Thompson, U. of PA, Data Administration, 215-898-1236
E-mail (MIME): [log in to unmask] -OR- [log in to unmask]