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