Below is a sample mail file (I have dozens like it) that appears to have been rejected due to a poorly built 'Reply-To' line: >Received: by TAUNIVM (Mailer R2.03B) id 8254; Fri, 26 Oct 90 08:16:49 IST >X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender. >Received: from TAURUS.BITNET (MAILER) by TAUNIVM.TAU.AC.IL (Mailer R2.03B) with > BSMTP id 8253; Fri, 26 Oct 90 08:16:48 IST >From: [log in to unmask] >Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]> >Received: by math.tau.ac.il (4.1/TAU-4.8) > id AA27279; Fri, 26 Oct 90 08:20:48 +0200 >Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]> >Comments: If you have trouble reaching this host as math.tau.ac.il > Please use the old address: [log in to unmask] >Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> >Received: from CUNYVM by CUNYVM.BITNET (Mailer R2.03B) with BSMTP id 0714; Fri, > 26 Oct 90 02:04:51 EDT >Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 02:04:46 EDT >From: <[log in to unmask]> >To: <@math.tau.ac.il:[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Undeliverable Mail >ReSent-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 08:16:48 IST >ReSent-From: Network Mailer <MAILER@TAUNIVM> >ReSent-To: MAINT@TAUNIVM > >CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU unable to deliver following mail to recipient(s): > <[log in to unmask]> >CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU received negative reply: >554 Unbalanced '<' > > ** Text of Mail follows ** >Received: from TAURUS.BITNET by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with > BSMTP id 5915; Fri, 26 Oct 90 02:04:07 EDT >Received: From TAURUS.BITNET By TAURUS.BITNET ; 26 Oct 90 06:03:16 GMT >From: [log in to unmask] >Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]> >Received: by math.tau.ac.il (4.1/TAU-4.8) > id AA26821; Fri, 26 Oct 90 07:41:24 +0200 >Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]> >Comments: If you have trouble reaching this host as math.tau.ac.il > Please use the old address: [log in to unmask] >Received: From taurus.bitnet By TAURUS.BITNET ; 26 Oct 90 05:40:52 GMT >Received: from TAUNIVM by TAUNIVM.TAU.AC.IL (Mailer R2.03B) with BSMTP id 8080; > Fri, 26 Oct 90 07:34:41 IST >Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 09:58:26 -0400 >Reply-To: Theory-B - TheoryNet Ongoing Seminars and Lectures > <THEORY-B@NDSUVM1>, > Ricky Pollack <[log in to unmask] >Apparently-To: matias > >u> >Sender: TheoryNet List <THEORYNT@DEARN> >Comments: To: [log in to unmask] >Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was THEORY-B@NDSUVM1 >From: Ricky Pollack <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Fifteenth Computational Geometry Day Announcement >To: Multiple recipients of <THEORYNT@DEARN> Notice how the trailing '>' appears two lines after the Reply-To line. Some mailer adds the Apparently-To line after the final RFC822 header line which is delineated by a blank line. For some reason Listserv at either DEARN or NDSUVM1 built the Reply-to wrong. Can this be fixed? >Reply-To: Theory-B - TheoryNet Ongoing Seminars and Lectures > <THEORY-B@NDSUVM1>, > Ricky Pollack <[log in to unmask] >Apparently-To: matias > >u> Hank