>Leonard Woren has commented on this point. No reason not to use the TO >field. Leonard also identified the opportunity to make savings in >bandwith and processing overhead. Mister O'Reilly, I would like to refer you, like Leonard, to the previous discussions held on this list. I see no point in repeating the same things over and over every 6 months, so please read the archives of LSTSRV-L. And, while we're at it, to the comments I made on Leonard's letter, which, as far as I can see, didn't "identify" anything but merely stated, without any technical argument to back up the statement, that there would be savings. I would like to extend to Mister O'Reilly, or to anybody else who is interested, the offer that I have made in the past to a couple individuals sharing the same views (there aren't that many, so you'll easily guess the names). I am one of the global owners of the LINKFAIL list. I propose to experiment the wonderful idea of making LISTSERV compliant with a standard which it keeps violating in the most hideously scornful way, by setting the "Sender:" of LINKFAIL to the address of a human person, who can act on the error mail he receives, as specified beyond the slightest possibility of ambiguity in the well-defined, widely-respected RFC822 protocol, so that this list can become a model of compliance, blah blah. I propose to change the "Sender:" field of LINKFAIL to point to the personal userid of Mister O'Reilly, or to that of any other person who believes that this is the way things should be. I would request proof of the receipt of 10,000 interactive messages before I consent to set things back the way they were before. Eric