On Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:07:09 EST Jim Jones <JIMJ@JHUVM> said:
 
> The difference is,  luckily in my case, the encapsulated  mail that was
> being  returned, didn't  have  the addresses  flipped ass-backwards  in
> JANET order. So,  my LISTSERV saw the mailing list  address in the body
> of  the  mail  message.  In  your  case,  your  LISTSERV  saw,  Sender:
> [log in to unmask], which  is total crap  as far as  everyone but
> JANET is concerned.
 
LISTSERV can handle that, but you have to tell it that CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU is
an alias for the local node (via the MYDOMAIN variable).
 
 
> Why were the mail headers in your rejections left in JANET order, while
> mine were in Internet order?
 
Because  the rejection  took place  in the  JANET world,  a JANET  mailer
generated a  delivery error with  a JANET-formatted rejected  message and
passed it back to BITNET. The gateway doesn't touch the body of course.
 
> And if some  sites are going to  make cute headers with  "%%" gizmos to
> 'highlight'  Subject:  text  and  use unusual  From:  address  in  mail
> rejection  notices, the  text of  the  returned mail  becomes a  rather
> important piece of information.
 
They claim the package  in question is OCO and thus  the subject can't be
changed. That the body is in  JANET format is unavoidable. That's the one
thing they can't  be blamed for (assuming one accepts  the very existence
of a JANET format, which is something I do very reluctantly ;-) ).
 
  Eric