> Listserv is treating CC: addresses in the way that the standard says bcc:
> should be treated. It's Just Plain Wrong.

Did someone suddenly wring the clock back to the late 80s? ;-)

Most of the things LISTSERV does are against RFC822 if you take the position that LISTSERV is an MTA, which was a subject of frequent debate about 15 years ago. In my opinion LISTSERV never has been, isn't, and never is meant to be an MTA. If you want a mailing list that behaves like an MTA, you can use SMTP NAMES, /etc/aliases or the like. Or you can use IETFHDR. If you use LISTSERV and do not turn on IETFHDR, you have to accept that LISTSERV will do things, like inserting "Reply-To:" fields, prefixing '[MYLIST]' to the subject or filtering out attachments, that only gateways are allowed to do. This doesn't mean you cannot disagree about what this or that LISTSERV behaviour, but you cannot quote rules that apply only to MTAs and pass a summary judgment based on these rules. There isn't such a big fundamental difference between inserting a "Reply-To:" and removing a "cc:" field. In both cases, you are changing where replies are likely to go, and both are Just Plain Wrong according to RFC822. Again, I respect the minority opinion that LISTSERV is an MTA, and have provided IETFHDR for this purpose. But if you do not use IETFHDR, LISTSERV works as a gateway and is free to change the header.

And I thought this horse was long dead and buried ;-)

  Eric