> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:38:44 -0500
> From: Pete Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
>
>  >> Date:         Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:07:00 -0500
>  >> From: Pete Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
>  >> To: [log in to unmask]
>  >> Sounds like their SMTP server dpesn't "like" empty RFC822 address fields
>  >> in the RFC821
>  >>
>  >> MAIL FROM:<>
>  >>
>  >> /Pete from Penn State
>  >Pete,

 and in a private response further suggested...

> ...  When LISTSERV generates certain kinds of administrative
> responses, it builds the commands (as documented by RFC821) to the MTA in
> a somewhat different semantic than "normal" trying to prevent the
> possibility of email loops.  This is the null RFC822 fields of the
> "bounce" address with the RFC821 command that I mentioned.
>
> Some SERVER MTAs don't "like" LISTSERV's RFC821 compliant use of that
> semantic, thinking that it is spammage.

If this is what's happening in our LISTSERVer case with MSN (i.e.,
if MSN doesn't accept LISTSERV's RFC821-conformant command), it
seems like multitudes of other LISTSERV users around the world
with "email.msn.com" addresses would have been impacted by MSN's
protocol as well as our Sierra Club LISTSERVer users? Is this the
case? (Please excuse me if I've missed this thread on lstsrv-l.)

> Or, I'm completely off-topic ;-)
> /P

Peter R