I thought I had  fixed the "user @ node" problem in 1.5g  but maybe I didn't
really. You should  realize that 'username <userid@node>' is a  very rare form
of  RFC822  address  indeed.  Only  BITNET   uses  it.  The  general  rule  is
'userid@node (name)' or 'userid@node name' or '(name) userid@node (moreblurb)'
-- when  it   doesn't  come   as  a   X.400  +  RFC822   +  RFC733   mix  like
'@somenode:[log in to unmask]  The 'user  @ node'  problem
will  get   fixed,  don't  worry;   however  what  am  I   to  do  if   I  get
'@WISCVM:ERIC@FRECP11'? Want me to translate it to 'ERIC@FRECP11@WISCVM'? That
reminds me of  a rejection notice mailed  by some UUCP mailer  which said "To:
ERIC@FRECP11, eric@ERIC@FRECP11", and which got rejected by our mailer... :-)
 
  The contents of the "From:" field are  not very important. If the address is
so messed up that your average MAILER  or MAIL package is unable to understand
it, there is  no point in adding  fifty lines of kludges for  special cases to
have LISTSERV try to reformat it considering the 4-5 different mailing address
standards  that are  likely to  have been  mixed in  the address  :-) What  is
important is that the "To:" field be ok.
 
  I've been off for  a few days and the FRORS31-FRHEC11 link  is now down with
very little hope  that it will come  up before tomorrow. I don't  know when it
came down, and I  may well have missed a bunch of  LSTSRV-L mail still waiting
at CEARN  to be sent.  So don't worry  if this message  comes a little  out of
synch...
 
  Eric