Well, it  hasn't been blessed by  Eric yet, but I  reasearched the
problem and came up with the  following fix, that Harry Williams and I
are both running successfully.  Anyone  who has problems installing it
can feel free to contact me.
 
    PLEASE NOTE: THIS FIX ***ONLY*** APPLIES TO RELEASE 1.5K.  RELEASE
1.5J DOES NOTE  HAVE THE PROBLEM, AND THIS FIX  ***WILL*** BREAK IT IF
APPLIED.
 
Ross Patterson
------------------ Start of included file EUREKA   MAIL        -----------------
Date:         Fri, 17 Jul 87 09:43:16 EDT
From:         Ross Patterson <A024012@RUTVM1>
Subject:      Eureka!
To:           "A. Harry Williams" <HARRY@MARIST>,
              "Harold C. Pritchett" <HAROLD@UGA>,
              Eric Thomas <ET@UKACRL>
cc:           Mark Williamson <MARK@RICE>,
              Judy Molka <AKLOM@BITNIC>
 
    Well, I took my own advice and looked into the changes to LSV822IN
EXEC, and  found what I think  is the cause of  the Reply-to: trouble.
Eric made a change to the Reply-To: handler in LSV822IN, apparently to
allow multiple reply addresses in  a single Reply-to: (i.e.  Reply-to:
U1@N1,  U2@N2), and  also to  conform  with the  doc at  the start  of
LSV822IN EXEC that says that REPLYTO addresses will take this format.
 
    To do so,  he added a call to GetAddress  to extract an individual
address from the field.  However, GetAddress returns the field in that
funny "user node name" format, not the RFC822 "name <user@node>".  The
fix is to add a call to LSV822TO to reformat back into RFC822 style in
LSVXMAIL.   For  1.5k *only*,  the  fix  goes  on line  #461.   Change
"replyto = data" into "replyto = LSV822TO(data,'CROSSWELL')", as in:
 
/*#460*/When kwd = 'REPLYTO' Then
/*#461*/ If replyto = '' & ^gotXrepto Then replyto = data
 
   becomes
 
/*#460*/When kwd = 'REPLYTO' Then
/*#461*/ If replyto = '' & ^gotXrepto Then replyto = LSV822TO(data,'CROSSWELL')
 
    The  problem  only   shows  up  on  lists   that  have  "Reply-to=
...,Respect" coded, since  the bug is in the parsing  of the Reply-to:
header field,  which is  ignored by  "Reply-to= ...,Ignore",  and then
only  if the  sender  supplied a  Reply-to:  field (as  LIAISON@BITNIC
*always* does ;-) ).
 
    So the  upshot is: LIAISON@BITNIC  is sending out  "BITNIC LIAISON
list <LIAISON@BITNIC>",  which is fine.  The  secondary LISTSERVs that
have been upgraded  to 1.5k are then changing that  to "LIAISON BITNIC
BITNIC LIAISON list", which is only fine if you're dyslexic.
 
    I haven't put the above fix into LISTSERV@RUTVM1, but I'm going to
right now.  I'll let y'all know what happens.
 
Ross Patterson
Rutgers University
------------------ End   of included file EUREKA   MAIL        -----------------