> As I said to Bill offlist, the problem is that RFC822 never envisioned
> a system like LISTSERV, so LISTSERV has to make the best of a hostile
> environment.
 
I disagree.  IF all Bitnet mail was delivered using (B)SMTP (i.e., an
envelope instead of a header) AND IF LISTSERV left the "To:" field
pointing to the list, THEN it would not need to insert a "Sender:" to
identify the list, so "Sender:" could then point to an error delivery
box.  ALSO, "Reply-To:" would not be necessary, because a simple REPLY
command would then reply to the sender, and REPLY ALL would reply to
the list.  Just like on the Internet, where it works well except for
error delivery notices.  This would solve the annoying problem of
postings stating "reply to me" where the sender doesn't insert a
"Reply-To:", and therefore LISTSERV generates one pointing to the
list, and most of the replies then go to the list.  And since everyone
would get an identical copy of each posting, the DISTx code might be
much simpler, and it might also be much easier to save more network
bandwidth.