First let me try to wind this up (for now, we all know it'll resurface again) by pointing out that my original comment a week ago that (re)started this discussion said "IF ... and IF ... THEN ...". The IFs *were* capitalized there. One of those major IFs was "If all Bitnet mail delivery was via (B)SMTP. I don't expect LISTSERV to become completely RFC822 compliant until the transport is reasonable, which it currently isn't. Second, I _did not_ propose keeping all the Received: lines in the messages that LISTSERV receives and resends. I have modified our copy of the UA for UCLA/Mail to support suppressing user-specifiable header fields. I personally suppress Received: and a number of other normally junk lines. I think that LISTSERV should keep the complete original message in the logs, in case there's a question of how it got there, or why it was delayed. (Ok, who's going to be the first to complain about the extra disk space?) For various reasons, I have at least one of my subscriptions set to FULLHDR, so I get all the junk anyway. Third, I didn't have any fights with the "Internet freaks". I just described for them the function of LISTSERV, and it's use of Sender:, and asked for their interpretation of RFC822. RFC822 very explicitly states that Sender: should "not simply include the name of a mailbox from which the mail was sent." I propose that LISTSERV set Sender: to either "LISTSERV@wherever", (which might require adding some X-field to identify the message origin?) or else "listname-ERRORS@wherever". I like this last solution, but the VM-ers are going to complain about it being too much trouble to create the fake mailing addresses... BTW, the Bitnet redist of the Space Digest has Sender: pointing off somewhere like "Space-errors" or something. /Leonard