You could set her distribution to FULL
 
SET GARDEN FULL FOR compaining_userid@node
--
Date:    10 August 1992, 13:31:32 EDT
From:    Peter M. Weiss             +1 814 863 1843 PMW1     at PSUVM
Subject: MAIL distribution options options
X-To:      lstown-l at indycms
 
I have done a "study" of the various mail distribution options short,
shortbsmtp, fullbsmtp, full, ietf.  The following are my results using
a local test list to a local address at the Listserv 1.7c level with
options: reply-to=list, respect; X-Tags= Yes.  In all caes, the Date:
field was the same format (day, dd mon yyyy hh:mm:ss zone), and the
Subject: was consistent.  Neither is show here; the other headers are
show in order of their appearance.
 
SHORThdr
--------
 
Received: local mailer BITNET, one short line
Reply-to: list title <[log in to unmask]>
X-Sender:   list title <[log in to unmask]>
From: "<names entry>" <[log in to unmask]>
to:   <subscriber info> <[log in to unmask]>
 
SHORTBsmtp
----------
 
Received: local mailer BITNET local mail internet, one long line
          continued
Reply-to: list title <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:   list title <[log in to unmask]>
From: "<names entry>" <[log in to unmask]>
to:   MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS OF LIST list <[log in to unmask]>
 
FULLBsmtp
---------
 
Received: local mailer BITNET local mail internet, one long line
          continued
Received: local mailer BITNET local LISTSERV internet, one long line
          continued
Message-ID: <list%yymmddhhmmssxx@internet_host>
Newsgroups: BIT.LISTSERV.list
Reply-To: list title <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:   list title <[log in to unmask]>
From: "<names entry>" <[log in to unmask]>
To:   MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS OF LIST list <[log in to unmask]>
 
FULLhdr
-------
 
Received: local mailer BITNET, one short line
Received: local mailer BITNET local LISTSERV internet, one long line
          continued
Message-ID: <list%yymmddhhmmssxx@internet_host>
Newsgroups: BIT.LISTSERV.list
Reply-To: list title <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:   list title <[log in to unmask]>
From: "<names entry>" <[log in to unmask]>
To:   <subscriber info> <[log in to unmask]>
 
IETFhdr
-------
 
Received: local mailer BITNET local mail internet, one long line
          continued
Received: local mailer BITNET local LISTSERV internet, one long line
          continued
From: userid@node
To:   list@internet_host
Message-ID: <list%yymmddhhmmssxx@internet_host>
Sender:   OWNER-list@internet_host
 
The reason I went thru this exercise was to figure out if certain MTAs
could be tamed if headers were somehow beat into submission.  My vote
(and my 2›): IETF.
 
/Pete
--
Peter M. Weiss                     | not affiliated with psuvm.psu.edu|psuvm