> The other element involved is identifying the list so that the mail can be
> filed properly.  The NEWSGROUP: solution can be a way to solve this as well.
 
I agree with this part; I forgot to include something about this in my
previous posting.
 
> Mail programs already use SENDER: just because NEWSGROUP: is apparently
> (someone check into this, please) NOT an official standard and its format
> is not formalized.
 
That's not a usable excuse for misusing SENDER:.  If someone has a
problem with NewsGroup:, how about List-Name:?  I'm sure we can come
up with some reasonable field name.  More difficult is getting people
to have their software use it.
 
> > NONCONFORMING mailers that do not conform to the requirement to send
> > rejection messages to the Sender if present should be cut off.  It
>
> If that's the field we agree on.  I can't find in the RFC where it says
> to use this one that way.  Can someone cite and RFC/page?
 
Read section 4.4.2 .  I'll save the network load and not quote the
*whole* thing here.  But it's perfectly clear to me that what LISTSERV
puts in the SENDER: field is simply not legal according to the first
sentence of 4.4.2 :
 
         This field contains the authenticated identity  of  the  AGENT
         (person,  system  or  process)  that sends the message.
 
The listname *IS NOT* the "AGENT that sends the message."
 
Part of the second paragraph of 4.2.2 that elaborates on my point:
 
         ... and not simply include the name of a mailbox
         from which the mail was sent.
 
 
> I don't have space for that table, I only have a few thousand spare
> cylinders.
 
I hope everyone realizes that my suggestion wasn't 100% serious...
 
> They don't implement hardly any of the nice features, either.
 
Ok, so let's figure out how to implement the nice features *without*
causing other problems.
 
> It seems in the final analysis that the problem might stem from the
> fact that BITNET is a network that essentially does NOT use SMTP and
> certainly is not using TCP/IP.  To make LISTSERV work like lists on
> Arpanet would require implementing SMTP everywhere.
 
That's the most reasonable answer -- SMTP everywhere.
 
 
/Leonard