Why did LISTSERV reject this?  I know it's not because of size since
another one I sent afterwards that was large went through OK.  The
first exhibit is 22 lines of the LISTSERV console around the time that
it was processed (file 5315).  The second exhibit is the mail file that
was transferred to me by LISTSERV.  It looks perfectly valid to me.
 
 24 Jul 1987 17:06:53 File "MD4I MAILDIST" distributed to [log in to unmask]
 24 Jul 1987 17:06:54 File "MD4I MAILDIST" distributed to [log in to unmask]
 PUN FILE 5280 FROM RSCS     COPY 001   NOHOLD
 24 Jul 1987 17:07:13 Received file (0971) from LISTSERV@CMUCCVMA
 24 Jul 1987 17:07:14 From LISTSERV@CMUCCVMA: DIST MAIL FROM=SYSRUTH%UTORPHYS.BI
 [log in to unmask] ACK=None
 24 Jul 1987 17:07:15 Distributing file "MD4I MAILDIST" from SYSRUTH%UTORPHYS.BI
 NET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU...
 24 Jul 1987 17:07:16 File "MD4I MAILDIST" distributed to [log in to unmask]
 24 Jul 1987 17:07:16 File "MD4I MAILDIST" distributed to [log in to unmask]
 24 Jul 1987 17:17:26 Received file (5315) from MAILER@UIUCVMD
 24 Jul 1987 17:17:28 To   LISTMNGR@UIUCVMD: * Possible rejection mail (5315) ha
  been transferred to you.
 24 Jul 1987 17:17:30 Sent file "DIST-HAM MAIL D" to LISTMNGR@UIUCVMD
 24 Jul 1987 17:17:32 Sent information mail to LISTMNGR@UIUCVMD
 24 Jul 1987 17:43:50 Received file (5471) from MAILER@UIUCVMD
 24 Jul 1987 17:43:54 Processing mail from STANKERR@UIUCVMD for CMSSTAFF
 24 Jul 1987 17:43:59 Mailing created 1 outbound files (23 local copies) for 24
 ecipients.
 24 Jul 1987 17:48:03 Received file (5539) from MAILER@UIUCVMD
 24 Jul 1987 17:48:05 Processing mail from SCHAFER@RICE for LSTSRV-L
 24 Jul 1987 17:48:12 Mailing created 19 outbound files (2 local copies) for 24
 
 
Received: from Uiucvmd by Uiucvmd.Cso.Uiuc.Edu (Mailer X1.24) with BSMTP id
 5314; Fri, 24 Jul 87 17:16:36 CDT
Received: from uxc.cso.uiuc.edu by Uiucvmd ; 24 Jul 87 17:16:35 CDT
Received: from SIMTEL20.ARPA by uxc.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP (UIUC-5.52/9.7)
    id AA09754; Fri, 24 Jul 87 17:15:05 CDT
Received: from uxc.cso.uiuc.edu by SIMTEL20.ARPA with TCP; Fri, 24 Jul 87
 12:58:38 MDT
Received: from UIUCVMD (uiucvmd.cso.uiuc.edu) by uxc.cso.uiuc.edu with SMTP
(UIUC-5.52/9.7)
    id AA03623; Fri, 24 Jul 87 13:57:58 CDT
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: by UIUCVMD (Mailer X1.24) id 2085; Fri, 24 Jul 87 13:58:17 CDT
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 87 13:54:10 CDT
From: Phil Howard <PHIL@UIUCVMD>
Subject:      Just thought you might want to read
To: Info Hams <[log in to unmask]>
 
Just thought you might want to read one of the most arrogant filings I
have to date seen in docket 87-14.  For me, this has gone beyond saving
2 Mhz, but rather it has become an issue of ignorance, and YES shear
STUPIDITY, on the part of a limited few of the Land Mobile commenters.
I will post my detail reaction later.
 
The following is from "The ARRL-Letter" July 16, 1987, published by the
American Radio Relay League.
 
AEROTRON REPLY COMMENTS IN 87-14
 
Aerotron, Inc., is a manufacturer of ACSB equipment and also one of the
original petitioners for additional spectrum for the Land Mobile Service
in Docket 87-14.  We thought our readers Aerotron's reply comments
regarding the Radio Amateur's comments in this docket:
 
  "Aerotron believes that the many Comments filed by or on behalf of
Amateur Radio Service licensees represent the bias of one user group
only, and that , overall, they are extremely shortsighted.  The Notice
gives the amateur community a permanent place for them to expand their
use.  Now is the time to reallocate the 220-222 Mhz spectrum while it is
lightly used; not five years down the road when the amateurs may have
made significant investments in equipment but still not be making an
efficient use of that portion of the spectrum.
  Aerotron holds no brief against the Amateurs.  Over the years, their
contributions to the development of the art of radio are well known, and
Aerotron is only too happy to acknowledge them... Nevertheless, it must
be stressed that, by definition, Amateur Radio operators follow their
interest in radio as an avocation.  In strong contrast, many of the Land
Mobile users operate daily in ways that directly affect the health and
safety of the public.  The need for additional spectrum, now and in the
future, lies in the Land Mobile Services.  As Stephens Engineering
Associates, Inc., points out in its Comments herein, the Amateurs already
have more spectrum available per user than do Land Mobile licensees.
  As the Commission is well aware, it is typical in allocations
proceedings affecting the Amateur Radio Service for the Commission to be
inundated with mostly brief and conclusory comments from Amateurs who
resist any change in the Rules, however slight, that they see as adverse
to their interests.  Such is the case in this proceeding.  Aerotron is
confident that the Commission will see through such tactics and that it
will persevere in its proposed reallocation."