> The other element involved is identifying the list so that the mail can be > filed properly. The NEWSGROUP: solution can be a way to solve this as well. I agree with this part; I forgot to include something about this in my previous posting. > Mail programs already use SENDER: just because NEWSGROUP: is apparently > (someone check into this, please) NOT an official standard and its format > is not formalized. That's not a usable excuse for misusing SENDER:. If someone has a problem with NewsGroup:, how about List-Name:? I'm sure we can come up with some reasonable field name. More difficult is getting people to have their software use it. > > NONCONFORMING mailers that do not conform to the requirement to send > > rejection messages to the Sender if present should be cut off. It > > If that's the field we agree on. I can't find in the RFC where it says > to use this one that way. Can someone cite and RFC/page? Read section 4.4.2 . I'll save the network load and not quote the *whole* thing here. But it's perfectly clear to me that what LISTSERV puts in the SENDER: field is simply not legal according to the first sentence of 4.4.2 : This field contains the authenticated identity of the AGENT (person, system or process) that sends the message. The listname *IS NOT* the "AGENT that sends the message." Part of the second paragraph of 4.2.2 that elaborates on my point: ... and not simply include the name of a mailbox from which the mail was sent. > I don't have space for that table, I only have a few thousand spare > cylinders. I hope everyone realizes that my suggestion wasn't 100% serious... > They don't implement hardly any of the nice features, either. Ok, so let's figure out how to implement the nice features *without* causing other problems. > It seems in the final analysis that the problem might stem from the > fact that BITNET is a network that essentially does NOT use SMTP and > certainly is not using TCP/IP. To make LISTSERV work like lists on > Arpanet would require implementing SMTP everywhere. That's the most reasonable answer -- SMTP everywhere. /Leonard