>On a related note, can anybody explain why these are getting dropped
>on me instead of the originating listserv?  I'm about ->this<- close to
>stuffing in a 'signoff * (global' for this guy....
>
>/Valdis
 
It seems to me Mailer R2.10 running on VTBIT.BITNET is not able to
handle source-route addressing properly.  On the other hand, I also
wish the source-route address was not generated in the first place.
<[log in to unmask]> is a much "better" return-address as
compared to:
<@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU,@VTBIT.BITNET:[log in to unmask]>
 
-Chandra
 
>--- Start of included mail ---
>Received: from VTBIT.BITNET by vtvm1.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP
> id 4096; Thu, 06 May 93 02:33:53 EDT
>Received: from VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (NJE origin LISTBIT@VTBIT) by VTBIT.BITNET
> (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2568; Thu, 6 May 1993 02:16:13 -0400
>Return-Path: <@VTBIT.BITNET:[log in to unmask]>
>Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (NJE origin MAILER@VTVM2) by VTBIT.BITNET (LMail
>          V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6981; Wed, 5 May 1993 21:43:05 -0400
>Received: from VTVM2 by vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id
> 1066; Wed, 05 May 93 21:39:19 EDT
>Received: from sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
>   with TCP; Wed, 05 May 93 21:39:01 EDT
>Via: uk.ac.east-anglia.cpc865; Thu, 6 May 1993 02:38:58 +0100
>Date: Thu, 6 May 93 2:39 GMT
>From: [log in to unmask]
>To: OWNER-APOSOC-L
><@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU,@VTBIT.BITNET:[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: %% Undelivered Mail %%