Below is a sample mail file (I have dozens like it) that appears to have
been rejected due to a poorly built 'Reply-To' line:
 
>Received: by TAUNIVM (Mailer R2.03B) id 8254; Fri, 26 Oct 90 08:16:49 IST
>X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
>Received: from TAURUS.BITNET (MAILER) by TAUNIVM.TAU.AC.IL (Mailer R2.03B) with
> BSMTP id 8253; Fri, 26 Oct 90 08:16:48 IST
>From: [log in to unmask]
>Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
>Received: by math.tau.ac.il (4.1/TAU-4.8)
>        id AA27279; Fri, 26 Oct 90 08:20:48 +0200
>Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
>Comments: If you have trouble reaching this host as math.tau.ac.il
>        Please use the old address: [log in to unmask]
>Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Received: from CUNYVM by CUNYVM.BITNET (Mailer R2.03B) with BSMTP id 0714; Fri,
> 26 Oct 90 02:04:51 EDT
>Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 02:04:46 EDT
>From: <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <@math.tau.ac.il:[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Undeliverable Mail
>ReSent-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 08:16:48 IST
>ReSent-From: Network Mailer <MAILER@TAUNIVM>
>ReSent-To: MAINT@TAUNIVM
>
>CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU unable to deliver following mail to recipient(s):
>    <[log in to unmask]>
>CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU received negative reply:
>554 Unbalanced '<'
>
>           ** Text of Mail follows **
>Received: from TAURUS.BITNET by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with
> BSMTP id 5915; Fri, 26 Oct 90 02:04:07 EDT
>Received: From TAURUS.BITNET By TAURUS.BITNET ; 26 Oct 90 06:03:16 GMT
>From: [log in to unmask]
>Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
>Received: by math.tau.ac.il (4.1/TAU-4.8)
>        id AA26821; Fri, 26 Oct 90 07:41:24 +0200
>Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
>Comments: If you have trouble reaching this host as math.tau.ac.il
>        Please use the old address: [log in to unmask]
>Received: From taurus.bitnet By TAURUS.BITNET ; 26 Oct 90 05:40:52 GMT
>Received: from TAUNIVM by TAUNIVM.TAU.AC.IL (Mailer R2.03B) with BSMTP id 8080;
> Fri, 26 Oct 90 07:34:41 IST
>Date:         Thu, 25 Oct 90 09:58:26 -0400
>Reply-To: Theory-B - TheoryNet Ongoing Seminars and Lectures
>              <THEORY-B@NDSUVM1>,
>        Ricky Pollack <[log in to unmask]
>Apparently-To: matias
>
>u>
>Sender:       TheoryNet List <THEORYNT@DEARN>
>Comments:     To: [log in to unmask]
>Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was THEORY-B@NDSUVM1
>From:         Ricky Pollack <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      Fifteenth Computational Geometry Day Announcement
>To:           Multiple recipients of <THEORYNT@DEARN>
 
Notice how the trailing '>' appears two lines after the Reply-To line.
Some mailer adds the Apparently-To line after the final RFC822 header line
which is delineated by a blank line.  For some reason Listserv at either
DEARN or NDSUVM1 built the Reply-to wrong.  Can this be fixed?
 
   >Reply-To: Theory-B - TheoryNet Ongoing Seminars and Lectures
   >              <THEORY-B@NDSUVM1>,
   >        Ricky Pollack <[log in to unmask]
   >Apparently-To: matias
   >
   >u>
 
Hank