Well, it hasn't been blessed by Eric yet, but I reasearched the problem and came up with the following fix, that Harry Williams and I are both running successfully. Anyone who has problems installing it can feel free to contact me. PLEASE NOTE: THIS FIX ***ONLY*** APPLIES TO RELEASE 1.5K. RELEASE 1.5J DOES NOTE HAVE THE PROBLEM, AND THIS FIX ***WILL*** BREAK IT IF APPLIED. Ross Patterson ------------------ Start of included file EUREKA MAIL ----------------- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 87 09:43:16 EDT From: Ross Patterson <A024012@RUTVM1> Subject: Eureka! To: "A. Harry Williams" <HARRY@MARIST>, "Harold C. Pritchett" <HAROLD@UGA>, Eric Thomas <ET@UKACRL> cc: Mark Williamson <MARK@RICE>, Judy Molka <AKLOM@BITNIC> Well, I took my own advice and looked into the changes to LSV822IN EXEC, and found what I think is the cause of the Reply-to: trouble. Eric made a change to the Reply-To: handler in LSV822IN, apparently to allow multiple reply addresses in a single Reply-to: (i.e. Reply-to: U1@N1, U2@N2), and also to conform with the doc at the start of LSV822IN EXEC that says that REPLYTO addresses will take this format. To do so, he added a call to GetAddress to extract an individual address from the field. However, GetAddress returns the field in that funny "user node name" format, not the RFC822 "name <user@node>". The fix is to add a call to LSV822TO to reformat back into RFC822 style in LSVXMAIL. For 1.5k *only*, the fix goes on line #461. Change "replyto = data" into "replyto = LSV822TO(data,'CROSSWELL')", as in: /*#460*/When kwd = 'REPLYTO' Then /*#461*/ If replyto = '' & ^gotXrepto Then replyto = data becomes /*#460*/When kwd = 'REPLYTO' Then /*#461*/ If replyto = '' & ^gotXrepto Then replyto = LSV822TO(data,'CROSSWELL') The problem only shows up on lists that have "Reply-to= ...,Respect" coded, since the bug is in the parsing of the Reply-to: header field, which is ignored by "Reply-to= ...,Ignore", and then only if the sender supplied a Reply-to: field (as LIAISON@BITNIC *always* does ;-) ). So the upshot is: LIAISON@BITNIC is sending out "BITNIC LIAISON list <LIAISON@BITNIC>", which is fine. The secondary LISTSERVs that have been upgraded to 1.5k are then changing that to "LIAISON BITNIC BITNIC LIAISON list", which is only fine if you're dyslexic. I haven't put the above fix into LISTSERV@RUTVM1, but I'm going to right now. I'll let y'all know what happens. Ross Patterson Rutgers University ------------------ End of included file EUREKA MAIL -----------------