In article <[log in to unmask]>, Lillian Novela <[log in to unmask]> says: >I would like more info on creating headers for mail messages. >I tried "set listname shortbsmtp for *@*" with no results. (Are you trying to change the "headers" for all subscribers or just yourself?) A while ago I posted this to lstown-l -- > search headers in lstown-l where sender contains pmw1 since 5/92 --> Database LSTOWN-L, 2 hits. > print >>> Item number 2515, dated 92/08/10 14:38:00 -- ALL Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 14:38:00 EDT Reply-To: ListServ list owners <[log in to unmask]> X-Sender: ListServ list owners <[log in to unmask]> From: "Peter M. Weiss +1 814 863 1843" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: MAIL distribution options options - - The original note follows - - Date: 10 August 1992, 13:31:32 EDT From: Peter M. Weiss +1 814 863 1843 PMW1 at PSUVM Subject: MAIL distribution options options To: lstown-l at indycms I have done a "study" of the various mail distribution options short, shortbsmtp, fullbsmtp, full, ietf. The following are my results using a local test list to a local address at the Listserv 1.7c level with options: reply-to=list, respect; X-Tags= Yes. In all caes, the Date: field was the same format (day, dd mon yyyy hh:mm:ss zone), and the Subject: was consistent. Neither is show here; the other headers are show in order of their appearance. SHORThdr -------- Received: local mailer BITNET, one short line Reply-to: list title <[log in to unmask]> Sender: list title <[log in to unmask]> From: "<names entry>" <[log in to unmask]> to: <subscriber info> <[log in to unmask]> SHORTBsmtp ---------- Received: local mailer BITNET local mail internet, one long line continued Reply-to: list title <[log in to unmask]> Sender: list title <[log in to unmask]> From: "<names entry>" <[log in to unmask]> to: MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS OF LIST list <[log in to unmask]> FULLBsmtp --------- Received: local mailer BITNET local mail internet, one long line continued Received: local mailer BITNET local LISTSERV internet, one long line continued Message-ID: <list%yymmddhhmmssxx@internet_host> Newsgroups: BIT.LISTSERV.list Reply-To: list title <[log in to unmask]> Sender: list title <[log in to unmask]> From: "<names entry>" <[log in to unmask]> To: MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS OF LIST list <[log in to unmask]> FULLhdr ------- Received: local mailer BITNET, one short line Received: local mailer BITNET local LISTSERV internet, one long line continued Message-ID: <list%yymmddhhmmssxx@internet_host> Newsgroups: BIT.LISTSERV.list Reply-To: list title <[log in to unmask]> Sender: list title <[log in to unmask]> From: "<names entry>" <[log in to unmask]> To: <subscriber info> <[log in to unmask]> IETFhdr ------- Received: local mailer BITNET local mail internet, one long line continued Received: local mailer BITNET local LISTSERV internet, one long line continued From: userid@node To: list@internet_host Message-ID: <list%yymmddhhmmssxx@internet_host> Sender: OWNER-list@internet_host The reason I went thru this exercise was to figure out if certain MTAs could be tamed if headers were somehow beat into submission. My vote (and my 2›): IETF. /Pete -- Peter M. Weiss | not affiliated with psuvm.psu.edu|psuvm 31 Shields Bldg -- Penn State Univ.| "Connectivity is more than a Connection" University Park, PA USA 16802-1202 | E. Michael Staman, _The Circuit_, Apr 92