> >Couldn't this format be  made to work with nodes that  have no mailer as
> >well as with BSMTP-capable nodes?
>
> Yes and  no. No it can't,  for the minority  of nodes which don't  have a
> full  NJE implementation.  Yes it  is, for  those nodes  to which  the VM
> mailer can successfully send a BSMTP-submitted file where the recipient's
> address doesn't  appear in the  RFC822 header.  What I mean  is, LISTSERV
> submits  the  mail  to  the  MAILER,  in  BSMTP  format,  without  RFC822
> indication of the  destination. If the MAILER can deliver  that, fine. If
> it can't, tough. I  don't see what I can do to  improve this: sites which
> run an RJE emulator and rely on  the RFC822 header to know who's supposed
> to get the note aren't going to like an anonymous BSMTP header.
 
Not all nodes that don't have a full NJE implementation have a problem
with this.  We have several that don't.  It's just a matter of extracting
the important information from the NJE headers and passing it over the RJE
link along with the file.  A node that looks inside of files that are sent
directly to users is going to have trouble with other things.  Internet
mailing lists are one major example.  NOTEs are another.
 
Anyway, your description of how it works suggests to me that it will
work for DEFRT nodes.  That's how the INTERBIT gateways work for
Internet to BITNET mail (at least the one at CUNYVM anyway).  One big
BSMTP file is sent to the mailer.  It breaks it up and sends out files
as necessary, including individual files to users at DEFRT nodes.
 
> >Also, it  would be  useful if  a node  administrator could  request this
> >feature for all users at his or her node.
>
> And what  if the users don't  like it? I'm  not going to even  attempt to
> arbitrate fights between  node admins and users. You can't  just say it's
> their  business and  they should  fight privately,  the lawyers  might be
> involved (like a NAD may not be able to decide for his users on an option
> which causes  their name to appear/disappear  from the headers of  a note
> which might get sent to other people).
 
Node administrators decide lots of things for their users.  It's part
of the job.  This certainly seems within the node administrator's
purview since it affects network load.  But if there's a concern, let
the node administrator establish a default that the users can change if
they really want to.
 
If a particular country's law has a bearing on the issue, it seems to
me to be up to the node administrator to obey the law.  If you made the
default not to show any names, wouldn't that be most in keeping with
privacy laws?  The node administrator would then need to be sure that
no law is being broken if he decides to change the default.