>On a related note, can anybody explain why these are getting dropped >on me instead of the originating listserv? I'm about ->this<- close to >stuffing in a 'signoff * (global' for this guy.... > >/Valdis It seems to me Mailer R2.10 running on VTBIT.BITNET is not able to handle source-route addressing properly. On the other hand, I also wish the source-route address was not generated in the first place. <[log in to unmask]> is a much "better" return-address as compared to: <@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU,@VTBIT.BITNET:[log in to unmask]> -Chandra >--- Start of included mail --- >Received: from VTBIT.BITNET by vtvm1.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP > id 4096; Thu, 06 May 93 02:33:53 EDT >Received: from VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (NJE origin LISTBIT@VTBIT) by VTBIT.BITNET > (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2568; Thu, 6 May 1993 02:16:13 -0400 >Return-Path: <@VTBIT.BITNET:[log in to unmask]> >Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (NJE origin MAILER@VTVM2) by VTBIT.BITNET (LMail > V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6981; Wed, 5 May 1993 21:43:05 -0400 >Received: from VTVM2 by vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id > 1066; Wed, 05 May 93 21:39:19 EDT >Received: from sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) > with TCP; Wed, 05 May 93 21:39:01 EDT >Via: uk.ac.east-anglia.cpc865; Thu, 6 May 1993 02:38:58 +0100 >Date: Thu, 6 May 93 2:39 GMT >From: [log in to unmask] >To: OWNER-APOSOC-L ><@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU,@VTBIT.BITNET:[log in to unmask]> >Subject: %% Undelivered Mail %%