The MFEGATE issue allowed  me to discover a number of  problems in the current
LSVXMAIL code:
 
1.  LISTSERV *does*,  in principle,  support HT  characters in  RFC822 headers
   (well if  you can assume that  X'05' is the  equivalent of a HT).  They get
   converted  to blanks  by LSV822IN.  However, in  the case  of FAL  mail, ie
   RFC822 mail  with a filetype  of NOTE, the first  line in the  mailfile was
   compared to 'RECEIVED:'  (case ignored) in an attempt to  determine what is
   pure IBM  NOTE and what  is FAL mail. This  test didn't translate  HT's, so
   that mail items could occasionally be treated as IBM NOTE --> error.
 
2. There was  an error in the handling  of FAL mail, due to the  fact that the
   filetype was left as 'NOTE' after the mailfile was recognized to be RFC822.
   This caused the wrong path to be taken in a further series of test, and the
   message 'File  origin inconsistent with  "Sender:" or "From:"' was  sent to
   the  NJE origin  of the  file, which  normally happens  ONLY with  IBM NOTE
   format (otherwise the  notification is sent to the 'From:'  field - the NJE
   origin is  supposed to be  a mailer  in the RFC822  case). It is  of course
   silly to notify the mailer of this error.
 
3. I  have modified  LISTSERV so that  all the gateway  id's listed  in DOMAIN
   NAMES are treated as 'trusted' userids. This means that if your FAL gateway
   is listed in  DOMAIN NAMES, it will now  be able to mail to  lists and even
   submit commands to LISTSERV normally.
 
4.  In the  MFEGATE affair,  the  'From:' field  of error  messages points  to
   GATEMAN@ANLVMS,  which is  not  the  gateway userid  and  is therefore  not
   considered 'suspicious'. Prior to 15N2, FAL mail was not recognized and the
   file was considered an IBM NOTE  --> origin was MFEGATE@ANLVMS (NJE origin)
   --> the file was considered suspicious.
 
I have sent the  fix to John Halperin and Tony  Monteiro for testing (LSVXMAIL
and LSVRDR - John already got LSVRDR  so I didn't resend it). Tony: please add
a dummy entry for  your local SMTPSERV in DOMAIN NAMES to  check that the code
works. We might wish to eventually register all SMTP gateways in DOMAIN NAMES,
just for the authorization check.
 
  Eric