Archive-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1993 00:06:41 CST Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1993 00:06:27 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096A5A9.F424B1E0.20767@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: MX-LIST Administrivia: Monthly Post Last modified: 2-JUL-1992 00:40 01:26 (Created) Welcome to MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, an electronic mailing list established for the discussion of the Message Exchange mail software. This is a routine posting you will see from time to time on MX-List. The MX-List archives are maintained at ARCHIVES@WKUVX1.BITNET. To get a copy of any month's postings, send an e-mail message with the body SEND MX-List.yyyy-mm to ARCHIVES@WKUVX1.BITNET, where "yyyy" is the year and "mm" is the numeric representation of the month. For example, the message SENDME MX-List.1992-04 will send the archives for April 1992. To remove yourself from the mailing list, send the following command to LISTSERV@WKUVX1.BITNET: SIGNOFF MX-List LISTSERV supports a few other commands for your convenience. The following commands can be handled automatically by the list processor: SIGNOFF MX-List - to remove yourself from the list REVIEW MX-List - to get a list of subscribers QUERY MX-List - to get the status of your entry on the list SET MX-List NOMAIL - to remain on the list but not receive mail SET MX-List MAIL - to resume receiving mail from the list SET MX-List CONCEAL - to not report your address in a REVIEW SET MX-List NOCONCEAL - to report your address in a REVIEW SET MX-List REPRO - to receive posts you make to MX-List SET MX-List NOREPRO - to not receive posts you make to MX-List LIST - to get a list of mailing lists served by WKUVX1 HELP - to receive a help file By default, subscriptions are set to MAIL, REPRO, NOCONCEAL. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions about MX-List, please contact the list owner at the address below. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Hunter Goatley, VAX Systems Programmer goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET Western Kentucky University Academic Computing, STH 226 (502) 745-5251 Bowling Green, KY 42101 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1993 03:15:59 CST Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: 01 Apr 93 09:11:58+0200 From: Fabien Marathee Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <9304010711.AA06383(a)eliot.cnes.fr> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: RE: Rewriting From: field It looks like MX can do all I expect, great ! But I miss a C compiler, do you think I can retrieve one freely somewhere ? Thank you Fabien Marathee, CNES Toulouse marathee@eliot.cnes.fr ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1993 06:38:32 CST Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1993 06:38:02 CST From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: marathee@eliot.cnes.fr Message-ID: <0096A5E0.A85E2D40.18301@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: RE: Rewriting From: field Fabien Marathee writes: > >It looks like MX can do all I expect, great ! >But I miss a C compiler, do you think I can retrieve one freely somewhere ? > You can get GNU c (GCC) V2.3.3 via anonymous ftp. You can find VMSINSTAL kits for it on mango.rsmas.miami.edu in pub/VMS-gcc. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1993 20:10:56 CST Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: loops & HELP files Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 23:26:23 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET if someone with a bad FROM address sends a HELP command to MLF, the return file, when it bounces (sometimes improperly), will issue all the commands in the HELP file and send them to the mailer daemon which bounced the original message. these messages, in turn, are rejected, etc. don't ask me how i know. i have prefixed all the lines in the HELP files with "|" characters to prevent their interpretation by MLF. -- -- bob pasker -- rbp@netcom.com -- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1993 02:07:37 CST Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: File server fun continues Message-ID: <1993Apr2.123735.403@kenyon.edu> From: oursler@kenyon.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: 2 Apr 93 12:37:35 -0500 To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Hullo, Thanks to Hunter's advice my file server is "up", but I'm still running into some walls. The help sayeth... DEFINE FILE_SERVER /MANAGER /MANAGER=address The /MANAGER qualifier identifies the address to which file service management requests are forwarded (when sent to user {file-server-username}-Mgr). If omitted, Postmaster on the local system is used. However, when I send mail to a list defined as File servers: Name: kctest-archives, Manager: <> Description: Archives for mailing list kctest@kenyon.edu Root: MX_DEVICE:[MXSYSTEM.MLF.KCTEST_ARCHIVES.] Linked to mailing list: KCTEST No delay threshold. Daily limits: Server: 0 Host: 0 User: 0 I receive the following: From: MX%"Postmaster@kenyon.edu" 30-MAR-1993 16:29:31.86 To: OURSLER CC: Subj: Message routing error Return-Path: <> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 16:27:27 EST From: Message Exchange Router To: oursler@kenyon.edu Subject: Message routing error Note: this message was generated automatically. Problem occurred during message routing for the following: Address: (originally: <>) Error: Invalid address. Message follows. Received: by kenyon.edu (MX V3.2) id 28462; Tue, 30 Mar 1993 16:27:25 EST Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 16:26:46 EST From: Miles To: kctest-archives-mgr@kenyon.edu Message-ID: <0096A4A0.92B73040.28462@kenyon.edu> Subject: Huh Who does this go to? So instead of sending it to the Postmaster, which is me, it sees it as nuttin and chokes. Am I missing something or is this broken? ------------------------------- Miles Oursler Manager of Networks and Systems Kenyon College oursler@kenyon.edu ------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1993 15:39:20 CST Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: MX records may be a problem Message-ID: From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 21:07:29 GMT Keywords: MX, MX records, VMS, sendmail To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Hello you all, From what I've seen, MX SMTP delivery agent *always* queries the DNS server(s) for MX records when trying to deliver an mail. This is true at least in MX V3.1, I haven't upgraded to 3.2 yet but I haven't seen anything in the 3.2 release notes. Many Un*x OS vendrors provide two different versions of the sendmail binary, one that queries the DNS server for MX records and one that does not. This can be useful for networks with a hierarchy of mailhosts where all nodes in a given entity have MX records pointing to the main mailhost. In such a case, we want only the main mailhost to get MX records from DNS, not individual machines. Any mail that cannot be locally resolved goes to the main mailhost, but local mail should remain local. It would be nice if a future version of MX would allow a system locical or a configuration file option to prevent MX records from being queried. Because we really wanted our local mail to remain local, I have modified NETLIB to have DNS_MXLOOK return immediately with a 'No MX records found' condition. My hack works, anyway it's nothing but a hack. Would MX be written in some language I can handle, I would have sumitted the change... //Alain -- Alain FAUCONNET Ingenieur systeme - System Manager AP-HP/SIM Public Health Research Labs 91 bld de l'Hopital 75013 PARIS FRANCE Mail: af@biomath.jussieu.fr (*no* NeXTmail !) Tel: (+33) 1-40-77-96-19 Fax: (+33) 1-45-86-80-68 -- Alain FAUCONNET Ingenieur systeme - System Manager AP-HP/SIM Public Health Research Labs 91 bld de l'Hopital 75013 PARIS FRANCE Mail: af@biomath.jussieu.fr (*no* NeXTmail !) Tel: (+33) 1-40-77-96-19 Fax: (+33) 1-45-86-80-68 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1993 21:18:51 CST Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1993 21:18:19 CST From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096A7ED.F6E83820.19051@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: RE: File server fun continues oursler@kenyon.edu writes: > > The help sayeth... > [....] > The /MANAGER qualifier identifies the address to which file service > management requests are forwarded (when sent to user > {file-server-username}-Mgr). If omitted, Postmaster on the local > system is used. > [...] >Who does this go to? > > So instead of sending it to the Postmaster, which is me, > it sees it as nuttin and chokes. Am I missing something or > is this broken? > You're right---it's broken. The fix will be in MX V3.3. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1993 05:16:16 CST Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Re: MLF -Request function and .sig files Message-ID: <1993Apr2.074727.131@tachyon.lonestar.org> Date: 2 Apr 93 07:47:27 CST To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article , rbp@netcom.com (Bob Pasker) writes: > madison@tgv.com (Matt Madison) writes: >>Maybe Hunter could add an "END" command, or something along those lines, which >>will tell MLF to stop processing any more of the message. Of course, you'd >>then have to get people to use the new command. > > unless i'm mistaken,i think 3.2 includes a "QUIT" command. > > -- > -- bob pasker > -- rbp@netcom.com > -- The file server has a quit command, but the list server apparently doesn't. No such command appears in the list server commands in the MX Mailing List/File Server Guide. I can't actually try it, because I'm not running a list. Wayne -- ============================================================================== Wayne Sewell |INET: wayne@tachyon.lonestar.org Tachyon Software Consulting |UUCP: uupsi!uupsi6!tachyon!wayne P. O. Box 550937, Dallas TX 75355-0937 |Voice: (214)-553-9760, Fax: -553-0077 ============================================================================== Solo: "Chewie, take the professor here and plug him into the hyperdrive." ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1993 09:46:48 CST Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: MX records may be a problem Message-ID: <1993Apr4.161327.1@sejnet.sunet.se> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1993 16:13:27 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article , af@saphir.biomath.jussieu.fr (FAUCONNET Alain) writes: > Many Un*x OS vendrors provide two different versions of the sendmail > binary, one that queries the DNS server for MX records and one that does > not. This can be useful for networks with a hierarchy of mailhosts where > all nodes in a given entity have MX records pointing to the main > mailhost. In such a case, we want only the main mailhost to get MX > records from DNS, not individual machines. Any mail that cannot be > locally resolved goes to the main mailhost, but local mail should remain > local. That is nothing more than a kludge. What happens if my PC, which does have an address record, is not running any SMTP server but is instead MX'ed to a central mail server? Your unix kludge will happily attempt to deliver to SMTP and eventually give up after N days, claiming the host cannot be reached. Eric ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1993 22:37:06 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1993 22:36:52 CST From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096A8C2.1A2EE0C0.19205@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: Re: MLF -Request function and .sig files writes: > >The file server has a quit command, but the list server apparently doesn't. The ListServ also handles QUIT. >No such command appears in the list server commands in the MX Mailing >List/File Server Guide. I can't actually try it, because I'm not running a >list. > I'd like to know what happened to them. I'd have sworn that I added QUIT to all the appropriate MLF help text files and the docs, but they're not there. I'll add it where appropriate for MX V3.3. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1993 05:05:14 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1993 10:50:52 GMT From: Chris Higgins - System Administrator Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: MX as a mail router... Should this happen To: MX-LIST@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096A928.A4086D00.282@csvax1.ucc.ie> I'm trying to route mail from a few small Unix (Linux) boxes through my VAX, Mail arrives in on the SMTP Server agent, is queued for processing, The Router is then passing it onto the SMTP delivery agent, which delivers it with a FROM address of MY machine... Is this normal behaviour ? Has any body else seen this. (There is no other processing done on the mail when it arrives.) Should this be happening ? Is there any way I can prevent it from happening ? Is it a bug, or a design feature ??? VMS 5.4 , MX 3.2 , Multinet 3.2a Thanks. Chris. + J.C. Higgins, Sys Admin + Auditor, Computer Science Society, U.C.C. + Chris@csvax1.ucc.ie + + Chris@odyssey.ucc.ie + If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't + C.Higgins@iruccvax.ucc.ie + come back to you, hunt it down and KILL it. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1993 15:55:06 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: RE: MX Router rewriting problems. Message-ID: Keywords: router Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 19:33:57 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET I tracked down the problem. It was not related to MX at all. What was happening was that because I'm can only deliver SMTP mail (not bitnet mail), I was passing all mail that I couldn't deliver to another local machine. It uses PMDF, and has been configured to rewrite the headers on all mail from my host. MX reigns supreme. --- Chris. + J.C. Higgins, Sys Admin + Auditor, Computer Science Society, U.C.C. + Chris@csvax1.ucc.ie + + Chris@odyssey.ucc.ie + If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't + C.Higgins@iruccvax.ucc.ie + come back to you, hunt it down and KILL it. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1993 11:04:19 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: MAILQUEUE Utility Message-ID: <0096AAAB.0DB51860@buckie.HSC.Colorado.EDU> From: Date: 7 Apr 1993 15:00:06 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET From the MX V3.2 documentation: MAILQUEUE is a program that scans the message queue for entries still in progress. It can be used by non- privileged users to view only those entries which were sent by them. When used from an account with SYSPRV privilege turned on, it lists all pending queue entries. . . . $ MAILQ*UEUE :== $MX_EXE:MAILQUEUE $ MAILQ If there are no delayed messages, MAILQUEUE returns the message: %MAILQ-W-NOMATCH, No entries matched specification Otherwise, the MAILQUEUE display will resemble the following: ------- Pretty useful utility for non-privileged users. However, when I run the utility, it does not display any information at all, warning message or entry information. We're running a beta-test version of MX V3.3, and I was wondering if perhaps anyone else was experiencing the same behavior--or could point out where I missed something. Dom Maddalone, dmaddalone@uh01.colorado.edu Systems Programmer, University Hospital, Denver ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1993 11:19:48 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1993 11:19:21 CDT From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: dmaddalone@uh01.colorado.edu Message-ID: <0096AABE.F3C23E60.20163@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: RE: MAILQUEUE Utility writes: > > From the MX V3.2 documentation: > > MAILQUEUE is a program that scans the message queue > for entries still in progress. It can be used by non- > privileged users to view only those entries which > were sent by them. When used from an account with > SYSPRV privilege turned on, it lists all pending queue > entries. [...] > Pretty useful utility for non-privileged users. However, when I run >the utility, it does not display any information at all, warning message >or entry information. > We're running a beta-test version of MX V3.3, and I was wondering if >perhaps anyone else was experiencing the same behavior--or could point out >where I missed something. > The documentation is in error: the utility does not print any message if there are no entries. I'll add the message in the next beta release of MX V3.3. With SYSPRV on, it will show all pending jobs. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 08:27:10 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 15:15:14 EDT From: mxlist@zmboot.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@RPIECSVX.BITNET Message-ID: <0096B060.10542F60.3137@zmboot.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> Subject: signoff SIGNOFF mx-list ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 11:59:36 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 11:38:11 CDT From: Mark Lokhorst Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: lokhorst@mgi.com Message-ID: <0096B10A.E93125E0.13016@vixvax.mgi.com> Subject: Mailing List Reply_to question Hi, I am running MX version 3.1C and have a question dealing with mailing lists. I set up a mailing list as follows: Mailing lists: Name: TECH_HELP Owner: "lokhorst@VIXVAX.MGI.COM" Reply-to: List, Sender Archive: MX_MLIST_DIR:TECH_HELP Description: Technical help source for MGI products Errors-to: LISTMANAGER@vixvax.mgi.com Protection: (SYSTEM:RWED,OWNER:RWED,GROUP:RWED,WORLD:RW) So, I get the following message on the VAX: From: MX%"TECH_HELP@mgi.com" To: LOKHORST CC: Subj: fringing Return-Path: Errors-To: LISTMANAGER@vixvax.mgi.com X-ListName: Technical help source for MGI products Received: by vixvax.mgi.com (MX V3.1C) id 12864; Thu, 15 Apr 1993 09:13:57 EDT Sender: olson@mgi.com Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 09:13:55 EDT From: THOR ** Reply-To: TECH_HELP@mgi.com, olson@mgi.com To: tech_help@mgi.com Message-ID: <0096B0F6.C16A2200.12864@vixvax.mgi.com> Subject: fringing WHAT ARE THE LEADING CAUSES OF COLOR MISREGISTRATION? : : And when I do a reply I get the following (no olson@mgi.com): MAIL> reply To: MX%"TECH_HELP@mgi.com" Subj: RE: fringing Enter your message below. Press CTRL/Z when complete, or CTRL/C to quit: Have I set up something wrong? Is this possible? Thanks for your help, Mark Lokhorst lokhorst@mgi.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 12:20:00 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 12:19:41 CDT From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: lokhorst@vixvax.mgi.com Message-ID: <0096B110.B467E820.22601@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: RE: Mailing List Reply_to question Mark Lokhorst writes: > >Hi, > > I am running MX version 3.1C and have a question dealing with mailing >lists. I set up a mailing list as follows: > > Mailing lists: > Name: TECH_HELP > Owner: "lokhorst@VIXVAX.MGI.COM" > Reply-to: List, Sender [...] > From: MX%"TECH_HELP@mgi.com" [...] >** Reply-To: TECH_HELP@mgi.com, olson@mgi.com [...] >And when I do a reply I get the following (no olson@mgi.com): > > MAIL> reply > To: MX%"TECH_HELP@mgi.com" > Subj: RE: fringing > Enter your message below. Press CTRL/Z when complete, or CTRL/C to quit: > >Have I set up something wrong? Is this possible? > No, MX does not supply both addresses on the VMS Mail "From:" line. Though VMS Mail will correctly handle two addresses on REPLYs, it quickly becomes very ugly if there are multiple addresses of any size. If MX included all the "From:" or "Reply-To:" addresses, the "From:" line would wrap or run off the screen when the message was read. MX supports this because some mailers will allow you to reply to all recipients. VMS Mail, unfortunately, is not really set up to handle this. Of course, I suppose it's no worse than specifying a many local addresses on the VMS Mail "To:" line. That line will be wrapped as well. I won't promise to include the functionality, but what are your thoughts on supplying all the addresses? Is this something that many of you would find useful? If I implement it, I'll probably make it site-configurable. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 13:51:21 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 13:12:18 CDT From: Larry Horn Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: hornlo@okra.millsaps.edu Message-ID: <0096B118.0E7553A0.7944@okra.millsaps.edu> Subject: RE: Mailing List Reply_to question >Though VMS Mail will correctly handle two addresses on REPLYs, it >quickly becomes very ugly if there are multiple addresses of any size. >If MX included all the "From:" or "Reply-To:" addresses, the "From:" >line would wrap or run off the screen when the message was read. [...] >I won't promise to include the functionality, but what are your >thoughts on supplying all the addresses? Is this something that many >of you would find useful? If I implement it, I'll probably make it >site-configurable. I don't care how ugly it is. I want the feature. If I think it's ugly I'll change the list setting. Thanks, Larry Horn / Millsaps College / hornlo@millsaps.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 11:24:15 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: 16 Apr 1993 11:31:15 -0400 (EDT) From: MAC Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Please mail list To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <01GX2SR8C48I000IRZ@Eisner.DECUS.Org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Thank you. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 18:56:27 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 16:50:14 PDT From: "David Scott Cunningham, TRIUMF, 604 222-1047" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096B1FF.AB0F93A0.9639@erich.triumf.ca> Subject: rewriting source address on outgoing mail Hello, In an attempt to move away from jnet, we would like to be able to have the return address on a message leaving the site changed from user@bitnetnodename.BITNET to user@node.subd.domain. How can one do this? Thanks, Dave ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 12:56:37 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: config info for mx jnet problem Message-ID: <1qn5ge$l1d@genesis.ait.psu.edu> From: ken@PSUEDVAX.BITNET Date: 16 Apr 1993 20:38:38 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET I forgot to add the *important* stuff to my MX/JNET post that I just made. o VMS 5.5-2 o MX 3.2 o JNET 3.5 o System : MV3100-30 32MB RAM, 2.5gb disk (plenty of free space) I had what may be a related problem earlier in the year, with JNET mail not getting through. I also discovered a big backlog of mail today in the MAILER account which MS runs under, most of it BITNET mail. I think I may have installed the MX 3.2 stuff from this account rather than from the SYSTEM account. Might this have something to do with it also? - Ken ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 12:56:52 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: MX missing BITNET mail on the way in? Message-ID: <1qn4hs$jh4@genesis.ait.psu.edu> From: ken@PSUEDVAX.BITNET Date: 16 Apr 93 20:22:20 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET It seems that MX and JNET aren't working together on my system any more. Can someone suggest why BITNET mail arrives as follows (extracted from VMS mail in its entirety) : --------- begin included message ------- From: Jnet%"XXXX@PSUVM" 16-APR-1993 16:11:52.35 To: ken@psuedvax CC: Subj: test message Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUEDVAX with Jnet id 8278 for MAILER@PSUEDVAX; Fri, 16 Apr 1993 16:11 EST HELO PSUVM.PSU.EDU TICK 1042 MAIL FROM: RCPT TO: DATA Received: by PSUVM (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) id 1042; Fri, 16 Apr 93 16:12:42 EDT Date: Fri, 16 Apr 93 16:12 EDT From: Subject: test message To: ken@psuedvax this is a test . QUIT --------- end included file ---------- MX Jnet intfc is running. That's the whole thing. It seems like MX misses it entirely on the way in. Internet mail works just fine, and my mailing lists are running OK too. Any ideas? I'm stumped. - Ken Hoover ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 12:57:17 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: a lot of .smtp_info files Message-ID: <1qn3riINN1p7f@rs1.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE> From: Date: 16 Apr 1993 20:10:26 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET using MX V3.2 (VMS 5.5-2HW) some entries hanging around to reach remote system, after 30 min. attempt to connect => new .smtp_info file version created. Lower versions will not be purged automatically. It is not a problem here (since entry will be deleted soon or later), but for systems with heavy mail traffic (and a lot of connection failures) it could have a negative effect (directory size). Have I missed something in the manuals, how can one suppress such a behaviour ? Andreas. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ KOSMA = Koelner Observatorium fuer SubMillimeter-Astronomie Andreas Moravec TEL +49 (221) 470 3558 I. Physikalisches Institut FAX +49 (221) 470 5162 Universitaet zu Koeln TELEX 888 2291 UNIK D Zuelpicher Str. 77 INTERNET moravec@ph1.Uni-Koeln.DE 5000 Koeln 41, Germany X.400 S=Moravec;OU=Ph1;P=Uni-Koeln;A=DBP;C=DE ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 12:57:22 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Re: Mailing List Reply_to question Message-ID: <1ql4vpINN4dm@gap.caltech.edu> From: Date: 16 Apr 1993 02:17:29 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096B10A.E93125E0.13016@vixvax.mgi.com>, Mark Lokhorst writes: ***= From: MX%"TECH_HELP@mgi.com" = To: LOKHORST = CC: = Subj: fringing = = Return-Path: = Errors-To: LISTMANAGER@vixvax.mgi.com = X-ListName: Technical help source for MGI products = Received: by vixvax.mgi.com (MX V3.1C) id 12864; Thu, 15 Apr 1993 =09:13:57 EDT = Sender: olson@mgi.com = Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 09:13:55 EDT = From: THOR =** Reply-To: TECH_HELP@mgi.com, olson@mgi.com = To: tech_help@mgi.com = Message-ID: <0096B0F6.C16A2200.12864@vixvax.mgi.com> = Subject: fringing =And when I do a reply I get the following (no olson@mgi.com): = = MAIL> reply = To: MX%"TECH_HELP@mgi.com" = Subj: RE: fringing = Enter your message below. Press CTRL/Z when complete, or CTRL/C to quit: = =Have I set up something wrong? Is this possible? VMS Mail doesn't recognize RFC822 headers. It just uses the "From: " line. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 14:56:50 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 14:56:35 CDT From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096B2B8.F4D62580.23402@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: RE: a lot of .smtp_info files writes: > >using MX V3.2 (VMS 5.5-2HW) >some entries hanging around to reach remote system, after 30 min. >attempt to connect => new .smtp_info file version created. >Lower versions will not be purged automatically. This is because of a bug in MX v3.2. It is corrected in the upcoming V3.3. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 15:03:14 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 15:02:57 CDT From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: ken@psuedvax.bitnet Message-ID: <0096B2B9.D85A7860.23406@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: RE: MX missing BITNET mail on the way in? ken@PSUEDVAX.BITNET writes: > > It seems that MX and JNET aren't working together on my system any more. Can >someone suggest why BITNET mail arrives as follows (extracted from VMS mail in >its entirety) : > [...] > MX Jnet intfc is running. > > That's the whole thing. It seems like MX misses it entirely on the way in. >Internet mail works just fine, and my mailing lists are running OK too. > > Any ideas? I'm stumped. > Sounds like JAN_MFSDISP is not pointing to MX_EXE:MX_MFSDISP.EXE. Did you modify JANSITECOMMON.COM to include: $ define/system/exec jan_mfsdisp mx_exe:mx_mfsdisp.exe $ submit/noprint/queue=sys$batch/user=MXMAILER/param=JNET SYS$STARTUP:MX_STARTUP Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 13:29:06 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: 19 Apr 1993 14:20:28 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jonathan E. Hardis" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: RE: rewriting source address on outgoing mail To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: hardis@garnet.nist.gov Message-ID: <0096B446.3D9FED80.11953@garnet.nist.gov> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > In an attempt to move away from jnet, we would like to be able to have > the return address on a message leaving the site changed from > user@bitnetnodename.BITNET to user@node.subd.domain. How can one > do this? Would changing the logical MX_NODE_NAME and/or MX_VMSMAIL_LOCALHOST in the file MX_DIR:MX_LOGICALS.DAT do it? ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:04:19 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Re: Mailing List Reply_to question Message-ID: <1993Apr20.150045.21904@emr1.emr.ca> From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 15:00:45 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET I am in favour of including all the Reply-to addresses. We have a problems distribution list (archived), and want to direct the response both to the originator and the list. REPLY is much easier to do than to remember to /CC: the list. --john John Edgecombe edgecombe@ccrs.emr.ca Canada Centre for Remote Sensing Ottawa, Ontario (613)947-1355 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:08:26 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:08:12 CDT From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096B505.4FC3E2E0.336@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: Re: Mailing List Reply_to question writes: > >I am in favour of including all the Reply-to addresses. We have a >problems distribution list (archived), and want to direct the response >both to the originator and the list. REPLY is much easier to do than >to remember to /CC: the list. > I forgot to tell everyone. This will be in MX V3.3; I made the changes last week when it first came up. And it is site-configurable. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 14:19:03 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: MX problems Message-ID: <0096B4FD.A6DE23E0@buckie.HSC.Colorado.EDU> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 18:17:54 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <1r1cppINNj9n@CS.UTK.EDU>, shuford@cs.utk.edu (Richard Shuford) writes: >The MX (Mail Exchange) package was written by Matt Madison, now of TGV, >and is being maintained by Hunter Goatley of Western Kentucky University. [...] >or to the MX mailing list, in which you may request membership by sending >a SUBCRIBE message to > > MX-List-Request@mvb.saic.com The list moved when MX's maintainer was moved: it is now at MX-LIST-REQUEST@WKUVX1.BITNET. >The archives of the MX-List are maintained for anonymous FTP on the >Internet host > > FTP.SPC.EDU [192.107.46.27] And from ARCHIVES@WKUVX1.BITNET. -d ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 01:42:17 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 08:37:17 MEZ ( +0200) From: Peter Kobe Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096B5A8.A17F3500.23702@pib1.physik.uni-bonn.de> Subject: non vanishing queue entries Hallo, we run MX V3.2. From time to time mesages are not sent, due to various reasons: - forwarding to an unreachable decnet-address, too long message (1Mbyte) etc. - They then all appear in INPROG state and are never discarded. The bad thing about it is, the sender is never informed about his message not beeing sent. I know, I can switch on all debugging logicals, but I am afraid, my system then runs out of diskspace Here is, how it apears just now: PIB33_$ mcp show queue Entry Status Size Source Agent Entry Status Size ----- ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- ------ ------ 21692 INPROG 474 LOCAL 22147 INPROG 318 LOCAL 22335 INPROG 249 LOCAL 22360 INPROG 167 LOCAL 22488 INPROG ****** LOCAL 23090 INPROG 1447 SMTP Any hints? regards Peter ===================================================================== Peter Kobe Internet: Peter.Kobe@uni-bonn.de Physikalisches Institut HEPNET: 13562::SYSTEM Universitaet Bonn Tel: (49) 228 73 3222 D 53 Bonn FAX: (49) 228 73 7869 Nussallee 12 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 07:58:32 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 13:23:25 UTC+0100 From: "(Gonzalo de la Cruz)" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: HELP To: Message-ID: <538*/S=cruz/OU=ccucvx/O=unican/PRMD=iris/ADMD=mensatex/C=es/@MHS> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 14:55:50 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 15:22:36 EDT From: "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096B5E1.40DD1C60.30493@swdev.si.com> Subject: Changing a message's destination I have some messages in my MX queue right now that don't stand much of a chance of being delivered. They are replies to a message someone else sent. We have our Unix systems in groups sort of like clusters where a person can log into any of a number of Unix systems and have the same environment. The person who is to receive the queued messages sent mail while logged into a system named snoopy. Snoopy is off line at this moment, but is in the same group as another Unix system sharing the environment with snoopy. If I could redirect the messages to the other node, the person could read the mail there. Is there a way to change the routing on these messages? -----------------------------+-------------------------------- Brian Tillman | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com Smiths Industries, Inc. | tillman_brian@si.com 4141 Eastern Ave., MS129 | Hey, I said this stuff myself. Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 | My company has no part in it. -----------------------------+-------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 16:44:37 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Wed, 21 Apr 93 9:26 GMT From: "UK TeX Archive Manager " Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-LIST%BITNET.WKUVX1@NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK Subject: Re: Mailing List Reply_to question In message <0096B505.4FC3E2E0.336@WKUVX1.BITNET> dated Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:08:12 CDT, Hunter Goatley wrote: > writes: > > > >I am in favour of including all the Reply-to addresses. We have a > >problems distribution list (archived), and want to direct the response > >both to the originator and the list. REPLY is much easier to do than > >to remember to /CC: the list. > > > I forgot to tell everyone. This will be in MX V3.3; I made the > changes last week when it first came up. And it is site-configurable. I too would vote for all addresses that appear in a Reply-To, whatever its origin, to be reproduced in the VMS-Mail From header, such that REPLY sends to all of them. This is the standard behaviour (and in no manner configurable) of DEC's CBS_Mailshr used in the UK to receive X.25-carried mail on the JaNet: the VMS-Mail From line corresponds to (in order of preference): 1) All the addresses in the Reply-To Grey-Book-Mail header, if one exists 2) The single mailbox in the GBM From line 3) The Sender line, in the absence of both the aforementioned With regard to mailing lists, since I'm still only ``looking'' at supporting CBS under MX, I'm forced to use my home-grown mailing list software, which receives mail by CBS, directs it for processing by my command-procedures through Deliver_Mailshr, and sends it out using Phil Taylor's infinitely more flexible Janet_Mailshr in preference to CBS. Turning to the type of mailing list mentioned in the original message, my software constructs two possible forms of the Reply-To header. If the originator of the message that's being exploded is registered as a subscriber to the list, the Reply-To line merely gives the name of the list, on the premise that the originator will get to see any REPLY through the normal explosion of the message. But if the originator is NOT a subscriber to the list, then his/her mailbox is mentioned as well as that of the list itself: this way, someone else who IS a subscriber to the list can REPLY and be assured that the originator (inquirer?) will see the response, but also know that his/her fellow subscribers get to see the response, and thus cut down on the possibility of duplicated advice. Of course, each such response, when *it* is exploded, will only carry the name of the list in the Reply-To, thus precluding the possibility of continuing ``discussion'' also being sent along to the original inquirer: but it's difficult to see how that could be avoided. My procedures even insert a X-Subscriber: header line, which says whether the originator is or is not a subscriber. If MLF doesn't already have this sort of capability, you might like to consider adding it (if folks out there think it would be handy, of course:-) Brian {Hamilton Kelly} System Manager for the UK TeX Archive at Aston University ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 08:15:44 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 14:11:47 GMT From: David Candlin Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: david@mail.ph.ed.ac.uk Message-ID: <0096B6A0.86DAB0A0.11025@mail.ph.ed.ac.uk> Subject: MX on AXP Edinburgh, 22-APR-1993 While we are waiting for the field test of MX on AXP, we'd like the AXP users to be able to send mail over DECnet (VMSmail) to a VAX in the same cluster and thence to MX. What's the recipe? I tried vaxnode::"%mx""user@host""" but it didn't like it. David Candlin ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 08:56:33 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 15:39:29 +0100 From: "Fly like an eagle, crash like a VAX..." Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List%WKUVX1.BITNET@CEARN.BITNET Message-ID: <0096B6AC.C6FB8180.23224@europa.rs.ch> Subject: RE: MX on AXP > While we are waiting for the field test of MX on AXP, we'd like the AXP >users to be able to send mail over DECnet (VMSmail) to a VAX in the same >cluster and thence to MX. What's the recipe? I tried > >vaxnode::"%mx""user@host""" > >but it didn't like it. > > David Candlin Try VAXNODE::mx%"User@node.where.ever.earth" Regards, Ralph Kloess +---------------+---------------------------------------------------------+ I Ralph Kloess I I-Net: Kloess@europa.rs.ch I I I Standard disclaimer applies to all my messages I +---------------+---------------------------------------------------------+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 09:55:14 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 15:38:55 GMT From: David Candlin Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: david@mail.ph.ed.ac.uk Message-ID: <0096B6AC.B31F4700.11097@mail.ph.ed.ac.uk> Subject: RE: MX on AXP Edinburgh, 22-APR-1993 Sorry about the typo in my original enquiry; I did of course try vaxnode::"mx%""user@host""" not vaxnode::"%mx""user@host""" but when I tried Ralph Kloess' suggestion, I got MAIL> send/noself/noedit To: edphv0::mx%"d.j.candlin@ed" %MAIL-E-ERRACTRNS, error activating transport MX %LIB-E-ACTIMAGE, error activating image EDPHA1$DKA300:[SYS0.SYSCOMMON.] [SYSLIB]MX_MAILSHR.EXE; -RMS-E-FNF, file not found The above image-path is of course on the AXP common-disk. That's why I put the double-quotes, to stop the AXP seeing MX% David Candlin --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > While we are waiting for the field test of MX on AXP, we'd like the AXP >users to be able to send mail over DECnet (VMSmail) to a VAX in the same >cluster and thence to MX. What's the recipe? I tried > >vaxnode::"%mx""user@host""" > >but it didn't like it. > > David Candlin Try VAXNODE::mx%"User@node.where.ever.earth" Regards, Ralph Kloess ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 10:58:18 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: MX on AXP Message-ID: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 14:49:50 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article 11025@mail.ph.ed.ac.uk, David Candlin () writes: > Edinburgh, 22-APR-1993 > > While we are waiting for the field test of MX on AXP, we'd like the AXP >users to be able to send mail over DECnet (VMSmail) to a VAX in the same >cluster and thence to MX. What's the recipe? I tried > >vaxnode::"%mx""user@host""" > >but it didn't like it. > > David Candlin Almost... vaxnode::mx%"user@host" --- Chris. + J.C. Higgins, Sys Admin + Auditor, Computer Science Society, U.C.C. + Chris@csvax1.ucc.ie + + Chris@odyssey.ucc.ie + If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't + C.Higgins@iruccvax.ucc.ie + come back to you, hunt it down and KILL it. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 12:25:01 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: RE: MX on AXP Message-ID: <0096B683.3E963200@buckie.HSC.Colorado.EDU> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 16:46:46 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096B6AC.B31F4700.11097@mail.ph.ed.ac.uk>, David Candlin writes: >but when I tried Ralph Kloess' suggestion, I got > >MAIL> send/noself/noedit >To: edphv0::mx%"d.j.candlin@ed" >%MAIL-E-ERRACTRNS, error activating transport MX >%LIB-E-ACTIMAGE, error activating image EDPHA1$DKA300:[SYS0.SYSCOMMON.] >[SYSLIB]MX_MAILSHR.EXE; >-RMS-E-FNF, file not found > >The above image-path is of course on the AXP common-disk. >That's why I put the double-quotes, to stop the AXP seeing MX% If you have MAIL$SYSTEM_FLAGS set so that Mail thinks you have a homogenous (?sp) cluster, you need to make Mail think you *don't* -- if Mail thinks this is a VAXcluster, it will not do use DECnet to send mail to another node in the VAXcluster (VMScluster, whatever). -d ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 13:26:54 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: MX on AXP Message-ID: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 17:26:47 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article 11097@mail.ph.ed.ac.uk, David Candlin () writes: > Edinburgh, 22-APR-1993 > > Sorry about the typo in my original enquiry; I did of course try > > vaxnode::"mx%""user@host""" not > vaxnode::"%mx""user@host""" > >but when I tried Ralph Kloess' suggestion, I got > >MAIL> send/noself/noedit >To: edphv0::mx%"d.j.candlin@ed" >%MAIL-E-ERRACTRNS, error activating transport MX >%LIB-E-ACTIMAGE, error activating image EDPHA1$DKA300:[SYS0.SYSCOMMON.] >[SYSLIB]MX_MAILSHR.EXE; >-RMS-E-FNF, file not found Does MX% work straight on machine EDPHV0 ??? Has MX been installed on *EDPHV0* and not another machine in the cluster ? > >The above image-path is of course on the AXP common-disk. >That's why I put the double-quotes, to stop the AXP seeing MX% > > David Candlin > >Regards, > Ralph Kloess > --- Chris. + J.C. Higgins, Sys Admin + Auditor, Computer Science Society, U.C.C. + Chris@csvax1.ucc.ie + + Chris@odyssey.ucc.ie + If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't + C.Higgins@iruccvax.ucc.ie + come back to you, hunt it down and KILL it. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 17:36:47 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: cts@dragon.com Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: UUCP/MX Problem Message-ID: <1993Apr22.153138.1062@dragon.com> Date: 22 Apr 93 15:31:38 EST To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET I found a problem today using MX and DECUS UUCP together. One of my downstream sites has been down for a few days, and a LOT of mail piled up in the spool directory....enough such that I was getting an ACP failure trying to expand the directory. Seems a lot of stuff got lost...news batches appear not to have been created, and mail, sent via MX, did not get to the spool directory. I'm guessing at this point it's lost. Sending mail via the UUCP_MAILSHR displayed the error back to me; MX did not report any errors or problems. I'd like to set things up in a fashion that something will scream for help if there's a UUCP error, or at least some non-casual way of detecting there's a problem. Ideas? Comments? ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 07:52:36 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 08:46:04 EDT From: Helen Theresa Lucy Smit Kirchen Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096B73C.308BFDC0.20056@vax1.elon.edu> Subject: managing lists - problems and questions I have set up a list at Elon College called TCH-ECON. There are about 150 or so members of this list. Everything is working fine with the execption of 4 or 5 people, who subscribed in the usual way, but their mail keeps being returned. Just a brief example (note - BARBOUR is the list owner): ===================================================================== From: MX%"Postmaster@vax1.elon.edu" 22-APR-1993 08:32:58.80 To: BARBOUR CC: Subj: SMTP delivery error Return-Path: <> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 08:28:10 EDT From: SMTP delivery agent Note: this message was generated automatically. A problem occurred during SMTP delivery of your message. Error occurred sending to the following user(s): (via HUB.UCSB.EDU): %MX_SMTP-F-MBX_UNAVAILABLE, action not taken: mailbox unavailable Transcript: Rcvd: 220 hub.ucsb.edu Sendmail 4.1/UCSB-2.0-sun ready at Thu, 22 Apr 93 05:27:57 PDT Sent: HELO VAX1.ELON.EDU Rcvd: 250 hub.ucsb.edu Hello VAX1.ELON.EDU, pleased to meet you Sent: MAIL FROM: Rcvd: 250 ... Sender ok Sent: RCPT TO: Rcvd: 550 ... User unknown Sent: QUIT Rcvd: 221 hub.ucsb.edu closing connection ======================================================================== This Dr. Watson received a message from me sent to WATSON@HUB.UCSB.EDU so i figure that EGYPT... is his personal computer which isn't always on. My question is how can I modify the mailing list to be the workable address? I tried MLFAKE but it did not remove the long address. Is there not a way I can edit the mailing list? (even using the CONVERT utility?) Thank you for your help. Terri ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Terri Kirchen, Academic Computing, 2306 Campus Box, Elon College NC 27244-2020 U.S.A. (919) 584-2295 kirchen@vax1.elon.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 08:54:01 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: 23 Apr 93 15:46:41+0200 From: Fabien Marathee Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <9304231346.AA16034(a)eliot.cnes.fr> To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: name_conversion.c I have installed gcc in order to compile name_conversion.c, but I miss str$routines and lib$routines libraries. Where do they come from? Thank you, Fabien Marathee, marathee@eliot.cnes.fr ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 10:59:57 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Re: managing lists - problems and questions Message-ID: <0096B740.337E3EE0@buckie.HSC.Colorado.EDU> From: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 15:19:16 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096B73C.308BFDC0.20056@vax1.elon.edu>, Helen Theresa Lucy Smit Kirchen writes: (wow - THAT'S a name!) >Error occurred sending to the following user(s): > (via HUB.UCSB.EDU): > %MX_SMTP-F-MBX_UNAVAILABLE, action not taken: mailbox unavailable This doesn't appear to be a legal address. >This Dr. Watson received a message from me sent to WATSON@HUB.UCSB.EDU >so i figure that EGYPT... is his personal computer which isn't always on. > >My question is how can I modify the mailing list to be the workable address? >I tried MLFAKE but it did not remove the long address. Is there not a way >I can edit the mailing list? (even using the CONVERT utility?) Send a message to MX%listname-REQUEST with the following in the body: REMOVE/NONOTIFY watson.egypt.econ.ucsb.edu@HUB.UCSB.EDU ADD/NOTIFY "Dr. Watson" I appears that something hosed his Email address on its way to your system when he initially sent his subscription request. -d ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 13:30:30 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Re: managing lists - problems and questions Message-ID: <1993Apr23.124003.6960@msuvx2.memst.edu> From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, flowers@MSUVX2.MEMST.EDU Date: 23 Apr 93 12:40:03 -0600 To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096B740.337E3EE0@buckie.HSC.Colorado.EDU>, dwing@uh01.colorado.edu (Dan Wing) writes: > In article <0096B73C.308BFDC0.20056@vax1.elon.edu>, Helen Theresa Lucy Smit > Kirchen writes: > > (wow - THAT'S a name!) > >>Error occurred sending to the following user(s): >> (via HUB.UCSB.EDU): >> %MX_SMTP-F-MBX_UNAVAILABLE, action not taken: mailbox unavailable > > This doesn't appear to be a legal address. There's no "user" part. "watson.egypt.econ.ucsb.edu" looks like a host; Probably "watson%egypt.econ.ucsb.edu@HUB.UCSB.EDU" is needed. -- Harry Flowers Internet: FLOWERS@MSUVX2.MEMST.EDU Memphis State University & Bitnet: FLOWERS@MEMSTVX1 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 13:44:04 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 13:28:49 CDT From: "George D. Greenwade" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, bed_gdg@SHSU.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: kirchen@vax1.elon.edu Message-ID: <0096B763.B06BD2A0.29238@SHSU.edu> Subject: RE: managing lists - problems and questions On Fri, 23 Apr 1993 08:46:04 EDT, Helen Theresa Lucy Smit Kirchen posted: > I have set up a list at Elon College called TCH-ECON. There are about 150 > or so members of this list. Everything is working fine with the execption > of 4 or 5 people, who subscribed in the usual way, but their mail keeps > being returned. > .... > Error occurred sending to the following user(s): > (via HUB.UCSB.EDU): > %MX_SMTP-F-MBX_UNAVAILABLE, action not taken: mailbox unavailable > .... > Sent: RCPT TO: > Rcvd: 550 ... User unknown > > This Dr. Watson received a message from me sent to WATSON@HUB.UCSB.EDU so > i figure that EGYPT... is his personal computer which isn't always on. From the DNS records, it appears that the same machine at the IP address of 128.111.225.250 is registered as econ.ucsb.edu, egypt.ucsb.edu, and as egypt.econ.ucsb.edu (why not econ.eqypt also???). It appears to be a Sun, which probably means that the sendmail.cf file is screwed up. If the subscriber subscribed the usual way, his RFC 822 envelope is screwed up and it needs to be fixed at his end. If you were to propagate his mail (which you very likely are anyway), it is unrepliable as configured, which won't win you popularity contests with your subscribers. Do everyone a favor here -- tell him to fix his mailer/mail interface/sendmail.cf and remove him from the list until it is fixed. Once everything is in proper working order, let him resubscribe the usual way. He may not be happy about this, but if you're going to use your network toys, you really need to use them properly. > My question is how can I modify the mailing list to be the workable > address? I tried MLFAKE but it did not remove the long address. Is there > not a way I can edit the mailing list? (even using the CONVERT utility?) First, my guess is that watson@any_of_the_host_variants_for_ucsb would work. What you want is his *real* mailing address on the list of subscribers since without it he can't do anything and you are left to do all his dirty work. This is why he needs to subscribe the usual way. If you are an owner of the list or one of the privileged users, you can use the -request address for the list to handle what you want. In the body of a mail message to TCH-ECON-REQUEST, include: remove/nonotify watson.egypt.econ.ucsb.edu@HUB.UCSB.EDU casing the username EXACTLY as shown (the /nonotify won't generate the bye-bye message to the address you know is bogus). Check out pp 310 et seq. of the Message Exchange Mailing List/File Server Guide which is in MX_ROOT:[DOC]MLF_GUIDE.*. If you really want to add him back (think about that seriously, though!), use: add "Joe Unix" in your mail to TCH-ECON-REQUEST. It isn't the long username that's probably causing MLFAKE to not work as advertised (may be, but probably not). My guess is that it's the mixed casing. By default, MLFAKE upcases everything which is not quoted to it. In other words, it will convert: watson.egypt.econ.ucsb.edu@HUB.UCSB.EDU to WATSON.EGYPT.ECON.UCSB.EDU@HUB.UCSB.EDU and the latter is not on the list of subscribers and ought to fail. To get it to use proper casing, use the string: "watson.egypt.econ.ucsb.edu@HUB.UCSB.EDU" for the username to MLFAKE and it ought to work fine. Regards, George %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% George D. Greenwade, Ph.D. Bitnet: BED_GDG@SHSU Department of Economics and Business Analysis THEnet: SHSU::BED_GDG College of Business Administration Voice: (409) 294-1266 P. O. Box 2118 FAX: (409) 294-3612 Sam Houston State University Internet: bed_gdg@SHSU.edu Huntsville, TX 77341 bed_gdg%SHSU.decnet@relay.the.net %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 15:46:28 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 15:17:24 EDT From: Ta Fuh Chiam Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, chiam@VULCAN.CBA.OHIOU.EDU To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096B772.DBDF5600.18271@VULCAN.CBA.OHIOU.EDU> Subject: How to configure MX in cluster After messing around trying to set up MX in a cluster, I become really confused. Can someone please explain to me what exactly I need to do to get the following configuration: 1. I have a two nodes in a homogenous cluster, node name VULCAN and SIRIUS, cluster alias OUCBA. MX is now running on VULCAN alone. I just set up SIRIUS to run UCX and would like it to be able to receive mail via MX. 2. I want to have each node to be able to receive Internet mail via MX so that people can send mail to both username@VULCAN.CBA.OHIOU.EDU username@SIRIUS.CBA.OHIOU.EDU 3. I want each node to have its own unique From: line when sending mail out, that is, when sending from VULCAN, the From: line should have username@VULCAN.CBA.OHIOU.EDU and from SIRIUS, username@SIRIUS.CBA.OHIOU.EDU. I think I am confused as to whether I need to run MXCONFIG.COM twice or not. My understanding is that I don't. But then, how do I tell MX to handle my case as described above? Do I have to run all the agents on both nodes? Thanks for any help. Ta Fuh Chiam ============================================================================ Ta Fuh Chiam Ohio University, College of Business Administration / Phone: (614)593-2088 Management Information Systems FAX: (614)593-0319 Copeland Hall 22 INTERNET : chiam@vulcan.cba.ohiou.edu Athens, Ohio 45701, U.S.A. or : chiam@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu BITNET : CHIAM@OUACCVMB Use my first Internet address if at all possible. Disclaimer: What I have said are my opinions, not of anyone else. ============================================================================ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 22:02:15 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: How to configure MX in cluster Message-ID: <0096B783.DAF0A080@buckie.HSC.Colorado.EDU> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, dwing@uh01.colorado.edu Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 23:23:36 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096B772.DBDF5600.18271@VULCAN.CBA.OHIOU.EDU>, Ta Fuh Chiam writes: >3. I want each node to have its own unique From: line when sending mail out, >that is, when sending from VULCAN, the From: line should have >username@VULCAN.CBA.OHIOU.EDU and from SIRIUS, username@SIRIUS.CBA.OHIOU.EDU. If you're really sure you want this (if it is a VAXcluster, it makes the most sense to have it appear to be one computer to your users and the rest of the world.)? As a user, I would be frustrated if I subscribed to some mailing list from node SIRIUS and had to login to SIRIUS to make posts to that group. But I'm sure there's reasons you've set this up -- so we'll get it to work. >I think I am confused as to whether I need to run MXCONFIG.COM twice or not. My >understanding is that I don't. But then, how do I tell MX to handle my case as >described above? Do I have to run all the agents on both nodes? Your local host name is controlled by the logicals MX_VMSMAIL_LOCALHOST and MX_NODE_NAME. These are in your MX_ROOT:[000000]MX_LOGICALS.DAT file. The problem is there is only one MX_LOGICALS.DAT file that would be used by all of your VAXcluster nodes, and you want different values depending on the node. If you want them set to different values for each node, you could override their settings with something like this in your cluster-common SYSTARTUP_V5.COM: $ ... startup your TCP/IP package ... $ @SYS$STARTUP:MX $ DEFINE/SYSTEM/EXECUTIVE MX_NODE_NAME - "''F$GETSYI("NODENAME")'.CBA.OHIOU.EDU" $ DEFINE/SYSTEM/EXECUTIVE MX_VMSMAIL_LOCALHOST - "@''F$GETSYI("NODENAME")'.CBA.OHIOU.EDU" -d ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 07:12:49 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 14:06:51 MET_DST From: pizzorno@zwnvx1.gmd.de Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, pizzorno@ZWNVX1.GMD.DE To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096B832.2B43988C.348@zwnvx1.gmd.de> Subject: Local delivery & DECnet addressing Hi, I just installed V 3.3-beta. Hoping to be able to send messages into HEPnet with user@node.dnet, I defined the rewrite rule "<{user}@{host}.dnet>" => "<""{host}::{user}""@zwnvx1.gmd.de>" . MX is running with UCX+NETLIB, I don't have Multinet, but when I send a message to mx%"pizzorno@zwnvx1.dnet", the local delivery debug log reads: 24-APR-1993 13:27:32.76 Processing queue entry number 347 24-APR-1993 13:27:33.10 Checking local name: zwnvx1::pizzorno 24-APR-1993 13:27:33.10 LOCAL_USER: zwnvx1::pizzorno looks like a DECnet addr ess. 24-APR-1993 13:27:33.10 This is a delivery to MM. 24-APR-1993 13:27:33.19 DELIVER_MM: Delivering to zwnvx1::pizzorno 24-APR-1993 13:27:33.75 PERFORM_MM_DELIVERY returned status 00000001 24-APR-1993 13:27:33.78 All done with this entry. (How) can I tell MX not to try to deliver to MM (I have no MM), but to deliver over DECnet? Thanks for any help, .. Juan ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 10:52:34 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 10:52:22 CDT From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, pizzorno@ZWNVX1.GMD.DE Message-ID: <0096B816.FFB45CC0.2095@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: RE: Local delivery & DECnet addressing pizzorno@zwnvx1.gmd.de writes: > >I just installed V 3.3-beta. Hoping to be able to send messages into >HEPnet with user@node.dnet, I defined the rewrite rule > [...] >24-APR-1993 13:27:33.10 LOCAL_USER: zwnvx1::pizzorno looks like a DECnet addr >ess. >24-APR-1993 13:27:33.10 This is a delivery to MM. [...] >(How) can I tell MX not to try to deliver to MM (I have no MM), but to >deliver over DECnet? Thanks for any help, > This is a bug in the V3.3 you installed. It's already been corrected in the current beta version of MX V3.3, I believe. To stop it, just get rid of the file MAIL.TXT in your SYS$LOGIN directory. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 13:00:26 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 18:34:55 MET_DST From: pizzorno@zwnvx1.gmd.de Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, pizzorno@ZWNVX1.GMD.DE To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096B857.9DF949EC.388@zwnvx1.gmd.de> Subject: RE: Local delivery & DECnet addressing >[...] >>(How) can I tell MX not to try to deliver to MM (I have no MM), but to >>deliver over DECnet? Thanks for any help, >> >This is a bug in the V3.3 you installed. It's already been corrected >in the current beta version of MX V3.3, I believe. Sorry, maybe I should have been more exact. The version I installed was in the file mx033-beta-5.zip, and unzip -l displays the following ID: MX V3.3 Field Test 6 [22-APR-1993] Is there *really* a newer version of MX? >To stop it, just get rid of the file MAIL.TXT in your SYS$LOGIN >directory. .. But I don't have any MAIL.TXT in my SYS$LOGIN... .. Juan ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 19:18:25 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, rbp@NETCOM.COM Subject: really important new feature needed Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 23:28:17 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET i think there really needs to be a way to prohibit certain users or sites from accessing lists and archives. the /ACCESS qualifier is the positive form of such a feature, there needs to be a negatative form also. this is usually handled on un*x systems in a .ignored file. -- -- bob pasker -- rbp@netcom.com -- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 08:57:37 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Re: managing lists - problems and questions Message-ID: <1993Apr25.001257.1@molbiol.ox.ac.uk> From: jasper@molbiol.ox.ac.uk Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, jasper@MOLBIOL.OX.AC.UK Date: 25 Apr 93 00:12:56 BST To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096B740.337E3EE0@buckie.HSC.Colorado.EDU>, dwing@uh01.colorado.edu (Dan Wing) writes: > In article <0096B73C.308BFDC0.20056@vax1.elon.edu>, Helen Theresa Lucy Smit > Kirchen writes: >>Error occurred sending to the following user(s): >> (via HUB.UCSB.EDU): >> %MX_SMTP-F-MBX_UNAVAILABLE, action not taken: mailbox unavailable > >>This Dr. Watson received a message from me sent to WATSON@HUB.UCSB.EDU >>so i figure that EGYPT... is his personal computer which isn't always on. >> > Send a message to MX%listname-REQUEST with the following in the body: > REMOVE/NONOTIFY watson.egypt.econ.ucsb.edu@HUB.UCSB.EDU > ADD/NOTIFY "Dr. Watson" which is fine provided your list has w:RE protection, otherwise (ie if it W:E) he can only post from the address what he is registered with (the correct one you are going to give him) so your modifying the address as above may even encourage him to correct the way his machine is descibing itself to the world.... > I appears that something hosed his Email address on its way to your system > when he initially sent his subscription request. I guess this assumes it his system and not the mail hub that is at fault? Jasper Rees Oxford University Molecular Biology Data Centre and The Sir William Dunn School of Pathology jasper@molbiol.ox.ac.uk ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 09:26:41 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 15:29:10 GMTDT From: Zoltan Gal Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, zgal@HUKLTE51.BITNET To: MX-List@RPIECSVX.BITNET Message-ID: <0096B83D.AAA8BF60.21343@tigris.klte.hu> Subject: subscribe Zoltan Gal subscribe Zoltan Gal ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 13:40:42 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: robert@cpvax.cpses.tu.com Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, robert@CPVAX.CPSES.TU.COM Subject: Re: How to configure MX in cluster Message-ID: <1993Apr26.085923.421@cpvax.cpses.tu.com> Date: 26 Apr 93 08:59:23 CST To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET > 3. I want each node to have its own unique From: line when sending mail out, > that is, when sending from VULCAN, the From: line should have > username@VULCAN.CBA.OHIOU.EDU and from SIRIUS, username@SIRIUS.CBA.OHIOU.EDU. This is where you'll run into trouble I think. Why don't you want the FROM address to have the cluster alias? It should be more reliable than any individual cluster node. Your IP nameserver should have an entry for the cluster alias, CNAMEing it to the most available node. If that node is down for an extended period, the domain administrator can CNAME it to the other host. At our site, we insist that users use the cluster alias. If they don't, node unreachable errors are their own problem. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Eden 817-897-0491 Glen Rose, TX Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station robert@cpvax.cpses.tu.com ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ politicese for a nuke plant ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 17:38:07 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: America OnLine creates infinite mail loop Message-ID: <1rhlt4INNirb@CS.UTK.EDU> From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, shuford@CS.UTK.EDU Date: 26 Apr 1993 21:57:56 GMT Keywords: America Online, AOL.COM, list, bounce, Errors-To:, RFC822 To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET This is a lesson learned today by hard experience: Maintainers of automated electronic mailing lists should beware that the Internet e-mail gateway of the America OnLine commercial conferencing system does NOT honor the RFC822 "Errors-To:" header. In the event that a message from the Internet is undeliverable to "joeuser@AOL.COM", an error message, in which the full text of the failed inbound message is embedded, will be returned to the "From:" address. If the "From:" address is that of an automated mailing list to which joeuser@AOL.COM belongs, when the error message gets back to the mailing-list-host computer, the list host will send the ERROR message out to the members of the mailing list. Including joeuser@AOL.COM. The result is an infinite mail loop between the list-host computer and AOL.COM, with replicated copies of the increasingly large corpus of nested error messages going to every member of the mailing list. Naturally, maintainers of automated network mailing lists should be cautious when an AOL.COM user wants to join a list. -- ...Richard S. Shuford | "Do not move an ancient boundary stone ...shuford@cs.utk.edu | set up by your forefathers." ...Info-Stratus Coord. | Proverbs 22:28 NIV ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 20:07:23 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Re: America OnLine creates infinite mail loop Message-ID: <19930426.033@erik.naggum.no> From: Erik Naggum Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, enag@IFI.UIO.NO Date: 27 Apr 1993 01:11:31 +0200 To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET [Richard Shuford] : | Maintainers of automated electronic mailing lists should beware that | the Internet e-mail gateway of the America OnLine commercial | conferencing system does NOT honor the RFC822 "Errors-To:" header. There is no RFC 822 Errors-To header. It is a sendmailism. sendmail and RFC 822 are very seldom in agreement, and if so only by coincidence, such as being tended by a diligent systems manager who has junked the vendor configuration files, and even the vendor's version of sendmail. | In the event that a message from the Internet is undeliverable to | "joeuser@AOL.COM", an error message, in which the full text of the | failed inbound message is embedded, will be returned to the "From:" | address. Without further evidence (it is in the mail), we cannot be sure that you have followed RFC 821 on this point, that is, set the envelope header right. You may be using one of the less clever automated mailing list software around, and then that is at fault, not AOL.COM. | If the "From:" address is that of an automated mailing list to which | joeuser@AOL.COM belongs, when the error message gets back to the | mailing-list-host computer, the list host will send the ERROR message | out to the members of the mailing list. Including joeuser@AOL.COM. Why have you set the From header to the mailing list? It held the author of the message before you started messing with it, did it not? If you start to claim that people are doing evil things to you, clean up your own place first. Mailing lists do not generate messages, they distribute them. A big difference that is lost on some of the less clever automated mailing list software around. | Naturally, maintainers of automated network mailing lists should be | cautious when an AOL.COM user wants to join a list. Until further evidence is available, the error might well be in your particular mailing list software, not in AOL's handling of errors. I suggest you calm down, read the specifications you point to, and just stay out of this business of recommending what people should do when you lack the prerequisite clue yourself. Of course, AOL.COM may be doing the wrong thing, too, but in that case, only the author of the message distributed to a mailing list would get annoyed if the mailing list distribution software did the right thing. See also RFC 1123 Internet Host Requirements, on mail. Best regards, -- Erik Naggum ISO 8879 SGML +47 2295 0313 Oslo, Norway ISO 10744 HyTime ISO 9899 C Memento, terrigena ISO 10646 UCS Memento, vita brevis ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 20:46:31 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Re: How to configure MX in cluster Message-ID: <0096B9EE.5F189540@buckie.HSC.Colorado.EDU> From: Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 01:11:08 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, dwing@uh01.colorado.edu To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <1993Apr26.085923.421@cpvax.cpses.tu.com>, robert@cpvax.cpses.tu.com writes: >This is where you'll run into trouble I think. Why don't you want the >FROM address to have the cluster alias? It should be more reliable than >any individual cluster node. Your IP nameserver should have an entry for >the cluster alias, CNAMEing it to the most available node. If that >node is down for an extended period, the domain administrator can >CNAME it to the other host. If you setup MX records with preferences, this can happen automatically, too. >At our site, we insist that users use the cluster alias. If they don't, >node unreachable errors are their own problem. Sounds reasonable! -d -Dan Wing, Systems Administrator, University Hospital, Denver dwing@uh01.colorado.edu or wing_d@ucolmcc.bitnet ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 21:37:44 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 21:37:20 CDT From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, enag@IFI.UIO.NO Message-ID: <0096BA03.6E3A9680.2776@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: Re: America OnLine creates infinite mail loop Erik Naggum writes: > >[Richard Shuford] >: >| Maintainers of automated electronic mailing lists should beware that >| the Internet e-mail gateway of the America OnLine commercial >| conferencing system does NOT honor the RFC822 "Errors-To:" header. > >There is no RFC 822 Errors-To header. It is a sendmailism. sendmail and >RFC 822 are very seldom in agreement, and if so only by coincidence, such >as being tended by a diligent systems manager who has junked the vendor >configuration files, and even the vendor's version of sendmail. > True. MX includes Errors-To: because the other major VMS mailer uses it. >| In the event that a message from the Internet is undeliverable to >| "joeuser@AOL.COM", an error message, in which the full text of the >| failed inbound message is embedded, will be returned to the "From:" >| address. > >Without further evidence (it is in the mail), we cannot be sure that you >have followed RFC 821 on this point, that is, set the envelope header >right. You may be using one of the less clever automated mailing list >software around, and then that is at fault, not AOL.COM. > The software (MX, which I maintain) includes the Errors-To: header *in addition* to a Sender: and a From:. If AOL.COM is bouncing back to the list, then it is bouncing to the *Reply-To:*, not the From: address. The From: line is the original sender's address, the Sender: line is the mailing list owner's address (as is the Errors-To: line), and the Reply-To: is either the list, the From: address, or both. >| If the "From:" address is that of an automated mailing list to which >| joeuser@AOL.COM belongs, when the error message gets back to the >| mailing-list-host computer, the list host will send the ERROR message >| out to the members of the mailing list. Including joeuser@AOL.COM. > >Why have you set the From header to the mailing list? It held the author >of the message before you started messing with it, did it not? If you [...] And it still does, as answered above. >Until further evidence is available, the error might well be in your >particular mailing list software, not in AOL's handling of errors. I >suggest you calm down, read the specifications you point to, and just stay >out of this business of recommending what people should do when you lack >the prerequisite clue yourself. > [...] >Of course, AOL.COM may be doing the wrong thing, too, but in that case, >only the author of the message distributed to a mailing list would get >annoyed if the mailing list distribution software did the right thing. > >See also RFC 1123 Internet Host Requirements, on mail. > From RFC 822: o The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of any problems in transport or delivery of the original messages. If there is no "Sender" field, then the "From" field mailbox should be used. MX uses the Sender: address (described above) in the RFC 821 envelope. Sounds to me like AOL.COM is way out of line, not the mailing list distribution software. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 23:58:54 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, wortman@CENTURYLUB.COM Subject: Re: MX playing tennis with DECUS UUCP - why? Message-ID: <1993Apr26.160422.82@centurylub.com> Date: 26 Apr 93 16:04:22 CDT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Oh, if it makes a different, our logicals look like this: "MX_DEVICE" = "WILSON$DKA300:" "MX_DIR" = "MX_DEVICE:[MX]" "MX_DOC" = "MX_ROOT:[DOC]" "MX_EXAMPLES_DIR" = "MX_ROOT:[EXAMPLES]" "MX_LOCAL_DIR" = "MX_ROOT:[LOCAL]" "MX_MAILSHR" = "MX_EXE:MX_MAILSHR" "MX_MAILSHRP" = "MX_EXE:MX_MAILSHRP" "MX_MLF_DIR" = "MX_ROOT:[MLF]" "MX_MLIST_DIR" = "MX_ROOT:[MLF.MAILING_LISTS]" "MX_MSG" = "MX_EXE:MX_MSG" "MX_NODE_NAME" = "centurylub.com" "MX_ROOT" = "MX_DEVICE:[MX.]" "MX_ROUTER_DIR" = "MX_ROOT:[ROUTER]" "MX_SHR" = "MX_EXE:MX_SHR" "MX_SITE_DIR" = "MX_ROOT:[SITE]" "MX_UUCP_DIR" = "MX_ROOT:[UUCP]" "MX_UUCP_REWRITE" = "TRUE" "MX_VMSMAIL_LOCALHOST" = "@centurylub.com" WordMan -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Bret D. Wortman __ __ ____ __ Century Lubricants Co. wortman@centurylub.com / /_ /| / / / / /_/ /__/ 2140 S. 88th St. wortman@decus.org /__ /__ / |/ / /__/ / | / Kansas City, KS 66111 >>> USE wortman@centurylub.com@uu6.psi.com IF ALL ELSE FAILS <<< ________________________________________________________________________________ "Where's the smegging Shake'n'Vac?" "Sorry, I thought you were food." ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 23:59:04 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, wortman@CENTURYLUB.COM Subject: MX playing tennis with DECUS UUCP - why? Message-ID: <1993Apr26.160141.81@centurylub.com> Date: 26 Apr 93 16:01:41 CDT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET I just installed MX031 and have followed all the installation instructions, including post-install. My question is this: Outgoing and incoming mail all seems to bounce between MX and DECUS UUCP. Example: >From decus.org!USERNAME Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:48:21 CDT remote from centlub >Received: by centurylub.com (DECUS UUCP /2.0/2.0/2.0/); > Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:48:21 CDT >Received: from centlub by centurylub.com (MX V3.1B) with UUCP; Mon, 26 Apr 1993 > 15:45:12 CDT >Received: by centurylub.com (DECUS UUCP /2.0/2.0/2.0/); Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:41:22 > CDT >Received: from centlub by centurylub.com (MX V3.1B) with UUCP; Mon, 26 Apr 1993 > 15:41:20 CDT >Received: by centurylub.com (DECUS UUCP /2.0/2.0/2.0/); Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:15:40 > CDT >Received: by centurylub.com (MX V3.1B) with UUCP; Mon, 26 Apr 1993 14:53:24 CDT >Received: from Topaz.DECUS.ORG by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via > SMTP; id AA18561 for WORTMAN; Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:37:13 -0400 >Received: from mr.decus.org by DECUS.Org (PMDF #2354 ) id > <01GXGZT4FMCI8ZFKWH@DECUS.Org>; Mon, 26 Apr 1993 15:25:08 EDT >Received: with PMDF-MR; Mon, 26 Apr 1993 15:05:36 EDT So what's up? This was an incoming message (username changed to protect the guilty), and I can't figure out why no one wants to deliver it. The UUXQT process appears to just stop whenever I start MX, it logs nothing to UUCP.LOG, not even a "job scan" message. What am I doing wrong? WordMan BTW, is there a mailserver somewhere that has the new MX on it? My site has a dialup connection only, so FTP isn't available. Thanx. -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Bret D. Wortman __ __ ____ __ Century Lubricants Co. wortman@centurylub.com / /_ /| / / / / /_/ /__/ 2140 S. 88th St. wortman@decus.org /__ /__ / |/ / /__/ / | / Kansas City, KS 66111 >>> USE wortman@centurylub.com@uu6.psi.com IF ALL ELSE FAILS <<< ________________________________________________________________________________ "Where's the smegging Shake'n'Vac?" "Sorry, I thought you were food." ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 00:17:43 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Erik Naggum Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, enag@IFI.UIO.NO Message-ID: <19930427.001@erik.naggum.no> Date: 27 Apr 1993 07:11:08 +0200 To: Hunter Goatley CC: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, enag@ifi.uio.no References: <0096BA03.6E3A9680.2776@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: Re: America OnLine creates infinite mail loop | From RFC 822: | | o The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of | any problems in transport or delivery of the original | messages. If there is no "Sender" field, then the | "From" field mailbox should be used. Note that this applies only _after_ it has been delivered, although the wording here can be misleading. RFC 821 rules completely for the SMTP transfer session. RFC 821 specifies that errors go to the envelope sender (MAIL FROM), and headers are not included in this error reporting strategy at all. If AOL.COM is not on the Internet, the gateway to it shall preserve envelope information external to the message body in some functionally equivalent way, such as in the UUCP From_ line. See RFC 1123 for details. Best regards, -- Erik Naggum ISO 8879 SGML +47 2295 0313 Oslo, Norway ISO 10744 HyTime ISO 9899 C Memento, terrigena ISO 10646 UCS Memento, vita brevis ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 09:04:14 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, ake@DAYTON.SAIC.COM Subject: Re: MX playing tennis with DECUS UUCP - why? Date: 27 Apr 1993 09:22:59 -0400 Message-ID: <1rjc3j$6c0@dayub.dayton.saic.com> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Bret D. Wortman: WordMan (wortman@centurylub.com) wrote: : I just installed MX031 and have followed all the installation : instructions, including post-install. : My question is this: Outgoing and incoming mail all seems to bounce : between MX and DECUS UUCP. Example: : >From decus.org!USERNAME Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:48:21 CDT remote from centlub : >Received: by centurylub.com (DECUS UUCP /2.0/2.0/2.0/); : > Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:48:21 CDT : >Received: from centlub by centurylub.com (MX V3.1B) with UUCP; Mon, 26 Apr 1993 : > 15:45:12 CDT : >Received: by centurylub.com (DECUS UUCP /2.0/2.0/2.0/); Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:41:22 : > CDT : >Received: from centlub by centurylub.com (MX V3.1B) with UUCP; Mon, 26 Apr 1993 : > 15:41:20 CDT : >Received: by centurylub.com (DECUS UUCP /2.0/2.0/2.0/); Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:15:40 : > CDT My guess is you have not defined centurylub.com as local in the MX configuration files. It never sees the message as needing local delivery so it passes it off to the default handler which is UUCP. UUCP sees it but then passes it back to MX for local delivery. Check your MX configuration file. -Earle -- Earle Ake Science Applications International Corporation - Dayton Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: NSI-DECnet (SPAN): 28276::ake ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 12:46:57 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: 27 Apr 1993 11:40:11 -0600 (MDT) From: ccvax@academic.cc.colorado.edu Subject: Problems with DECNET addresses To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, CCVAX@cc.colorado.edu Message-ID: <0096BA79.2D6E2240.12806@academic.cc.colorado.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Using MX3.1c, VMS 5.4-2, UCX 1.3c (it will all be upgraded in JUNE) on a Microvax 3400, we are trying to communicate with users in Hutchinson, Kansas who have an email address of the form apple::adlarry@hutchcc.edu I can sucessfully send a message via MX with the following scheme: mx%"'apple::adlarry'@hutchcc.edu" or mx%"'apple..adlarry'@hutchcc.edu" However, they have never been able to send a message to us, and the undelivered messages never get returned to them. Until late last week we had another route via Boulder and PMDF. I did receive a message on this route. (They are using uucp, but I don't think that is the problem - we get other UUCP mail all the time.) The one that made it follows: From: VAXF::IN%"apple..adlarry@hutchcc.edu@uu4.psi.com" To: IN%"KMICHELS@CCNODE.Colorado.EDU" CC: Subj: THIS IS A TEST ON THURS 4/22/93 FROM HUTCHINSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Return-path: Received: from uu4.psi.com by VAXF.COLORADO.EDU (PMDF #2335 ) id <01GXBCCQA38000396B@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>; Thu, 22 Apr 1993 14:18:19 MST Received: from hutchcc.UUCP by uu4.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA05618 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 93 16:11:53 -0400 Received: by hutchcc.edu (DECUS UUCP ///1.3-1/2.5/); Thu, 22 Apr 93 15:09:58 C ST Date: 22 Apr 1993 15:09:58 -0600 (CST) From: apple..adlarry@hutchcc.edu@uu4.psi.com To: KMICHELS@CCNODE.Colorado.EDU Message-id: <0096B6A8A77AC400.2F075F16@hutchcc.edu> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Vms-Mail-To: BLUE::UUCP%"KMICHELS@CCNODE.COLORADO.EDU" X-Vms-Mail-Cc: ADLARRY I assume the problem is in the embedded .. in the Return-path and From headers. We seem to be the only site they send to with this delivery problem. Question: 1. Is there a way I can configure MX to accept these messages? I tried a rewrite rule to put the apparently offending stuff in single quotes, and tried it with an outgoing message, but the MX router appears to reject it as an invalid format before it checks rewrite rules. (mx_router_log.log for message coming from vms mail) 10:18:43.21 %PROCESS, Processing entry number 12566 10:18:43.46 %PROCESS, Status from READ_INFO was 00000001 10:18:43.47 %PROCESS, Message originated in VMS Mail. 10:18:43.49 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on envelope addresses. 10:18:43.49 %PROCESS, Processing address: 10:18:43.50 %PROCESS, ... skipping: invalid syntax. 10:18:43.50 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on message headers. 10:18:59.82 %PROCESS, Finished VMSmail-origin preprocessing. 10:18:59.82 %PROCESS, Recipient #0: (According to the next log, rewrite rules are done here - too late) 10:18:59.83 %PROCESS, Invalid address: 10:18:59.83 %PROCESS, Beginning ERRORQ processing. 10:19:01.85 %PROCESS, RETURN_MESSAGE status was 00000001 10:19:01.85 %PROCESS, Marking this entry as finished. (mx_router_log.log for return of error message to vms mail) 10:19:29.14 %PROCESS, Processing entry number 12568 10:19:29.40 %PROCESS, Status from READ_INFO was 00000001 10:19:29.40 %PROCESS, Recipient #0: 10:19:29.42 %REWRITE, Applying rewrite rule: <{user}@{host}.cc.colorado.edu> => <{user}@{host}> to: 10:19:29.96 %FINDPATH, Site-spec expand on academic returned ACADEMIC.CC.COLORADO.EDU 10:19:29.96 %FINDPATH, domain name ACADEMIC.CC.COLORADO.EDU matched path pattern ACADEMIC.CC.COLORADO.EDU 10:19:29.96 %PROCESS, Rewrote as next hop academic, path 1 10:19:29.96 %FINDALIAS, no alias found for kmm 10:19:29.96 %PROCESS, no alias found for kmm 10:19:29.96 %PROCESS, this is just a local delivery 10:19:30.63 %PROCESS, Adding to LOCAL path: kmm. 10:19:31.36 %PROCESS, Path LOCAL gets 1 rcpts, entry number 12570 2. I don't have a copy of RFC 822 Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages. Is this a valid address form or should it really be fixed at the source? They do send messages to lots of other hosts, and only seem to loose messages sent here. ********************************************************************* * Karen Michels * * Academic Computing ccvax@cc.colorado.edu (internet) * * The Colorado College ccvax%ccnode@colorado (bitnet) * * 14 E. Cache La Poudre * * Colorado Springs, CO 80903 719-389-6457 * ********************************************************************* ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 14:40:28 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 14:39:44 CDT From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, CCVAX@cc.colorado.edu Message-ID: <0096BA92.4204C9C0.3091@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: RE: Problems with DECNET addresses ccvax@academic.cc.colorado.edu writes: > >Using MX3.1c, VMS 5.4-2, UCX 1.3c (it will all be upgraded in JUNE) on >a Microvax 3400, we are trying to communicate with users in >Hutchinson, Kansas who have an email address of the form > > apple::adlarry@hutchcc.edu > >I can sucessfully send a message via MX with the following scheme: > > mx%"'apple::adlarry'@hutchcc.edu" or > mx%"'apple..adlarry'@hutchcc.edu" > >However, they have never been able to send a message to us, and the >undelivered messages never get returned to them. Until late last week [...] >I assume the problem is in the embedded .. in the Return-path and From >headers. We seem to be the only site they send to with this delivery problem. [...] >10:18:43.49 %PROCESS, Processing address: >10:18:43.50 %PROCESS, ... skipping: invalid syntax. [...] >2. I don't have a copy of RFC 822 Standard for the Format of ARPA >Internet Text Messages. Is this a valid address form or should it >really be fixed at the source? They do send messages to lots of other >hosts, and only seem to loose messages sent here. That address is not valid. The user portion must be quoted (as you do when you send out using MX%"'apple..adlarry'@...."). Sounds like a problem on the other end. MX can't be configured to accept this address. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 14:42:07 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 14:41:06 CDT From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BA92.73345740.3093@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: RE: name_conversion.c Fabien Marathee writes: > >I have installed gcc in order to compile name_conversion.c, but I miss >str$routines and lib$routines libraries. Where do they come from? > I don't think this was ever answered. They come with VAX C. All they do is declare all of the STR$ and LIB$ routines. You can probably just comment them out (or add your own prototypes for the functions used). Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 19:39:22 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, wortman@CENTURYLUB.COM Subject: Re: MX playing tennis with DECUS UUCP - why? Message-ID: <1993Apr27.120219.88@centurylub.com> Date: 27 Apr 93 12:02:19 CDT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <1rjc3j$6c0@dayub.dayton.saic.com>, ake@dayton.saic.com (Earle Ake) writes: : : > My guess is you have not defined centurylub.com as local in the MX > configuration files. It never sees the message as needing local delivery so > it passes it off to the default handler which is UUCP. UUCP sees it but then > passes it back to MX for local delivery. Check your MX configuration file. > That was it! Thanks for the assistance. She seems to be working now. WordMan -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Bret D. Wortman __ __ ____ __ Century Lubricants Co. wortman@centurylub.com / /_ /| / / / / /_/ /__/ 2140 S. 88th St. wortman@decus.org /__ /__ / |/ / /__/ / | / Kansas City, KS 66111 >>> USE wortman%centurylub.com@uu6.psi.com IF ALL ELSE FAILS <<< ________________________________________________________________________________ "Where's the smegging Shake'n'Vac?" "Sorry, I thought you were food." ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 05:55:05 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: MX to Microsoft mail - possible??? Message-ID: <1993Apr28.220953.110@southpower.co.nz> From: fowler@southpower.co.nz Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, fowler@SOUTHPOWER.CO.NZ Date: 28 Apr 93 22:09:53 NZDT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Hi, Has anyone tried to send mail from MX to a Novell PC Network. We currently run Microsoft mail on the PC network and want to be able to send mail to/from a VAX with MX hopefully without changing the mailer on the PC network. Incase it matters... VAX/VMS 5.5-2 MX 3.2 Thanks, Ken. -- Southpower, Phone: (64)(03) 363-9527 Private Bag, Fax: (64)(03) 363-9816 Christchurch, Internet: fowler@southpower.co.nz New Zealand. PSI: 0530130010083::galaxy::fowler ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 06:45:22 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 06:44:55 CDT From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, fowler@SOUTHPOWER.CO.NZ Message-ID: <0096BB19.17DC79E0.3318@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: RE: MX to Microsoft mail - possible??? fowler@southpower.co.nz writes: > >Has anyone tried to send mail from MX to a Novell PC Network. We currently run >Microsoft mail on the PC network and want to be able to send mail to/from a VAX >with MX hopefully without changing the mailer on the PC network. > We use Charon (an SMTP mailer for Novell) with PMAIL (a free mailer). I don't know if Charon supports Microsoft mail or not, but you might want to take a look. I would, but I don't run it, so I don't have the docs. You can find it on Simtel20, wuarchive.wustl.edu (in mirrors/msdos/novell/charn40a.zip), and other places. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 08:52:25 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 09:07:40 EDT From: "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM To: WKUVX1.BITNET!MX-List@esseye.si.com CC: fowler@southpower.co.nz Message-ID: <0096BB2D.092D8920.2176@swdev.si.com> Subject: RE: MX to Microsoft mail - possible??? Ken Fowler asks: >Has anyone tried to send mail from MX to a Novell PC Network. We do approximately the same thing all the time, but we've got another piece in the mix. We use Worldtalk, Inc.'s software to act as gateways between SMTP and X.400, X.400 and cc:Mail (on PCs and Macs), and X.400 and Microsoft Mail (on Macs). We're also trying Lotus' cc:Mail - SMTP gateway, but it's not working as well. -----------------------------+-------------------------------- Brian Tillman | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com Smiths Industries, Inc. | tillman_brian@si.com 4141 Eastern Ave., MS129 | Hey, I said this stuff myself. Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 | My company has no part in it. -----------------------------+-------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 09:58:47 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, houseman@HOPPER.VIRGINIA.EDU Subject: Re: MX to Microsoft mail - possible??? Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 13:59:30 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <1993Apr28.220953.110@southpower.co.nz> fowler@southpower.co.nz writes: >Has anyone tried to send mail from MX to a Novell PC Network. We currently run >Microsoft mail on the PC network and want to be able to send mail to/from a VAX >with MX hopefully without changing the mailer on the PC network. We are doing exactly this. However, you must install the Microsoft SMTP gateway on a dedicated PC. The SMTP gateway software doesn't come with MS-Mail; you must purchase it separately (at fairly high cost, compared to the pricing of other MS-Mail components). >Thanks, >Ken. >-- >Southpower, Phone: (64)(03) 363-9527 >Private Bag, Fax: (64)(03) 363-9816 >Christchurch, Internet: fowler@southpower.co.nz >New Zealand. PSI: 0530130010083::galaxy::fowler Carl Houseman houseman@hopper.acs.virginia.edu GENICOM Engineering, Waynesboro, VA ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 10:05:13 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <9304270759.AA02370@bogart.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: subcribe Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 08:59:44 +0100 From: boerner@bogart Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, boerner@BOGART subscribe ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 10:53:28 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 09:07:43 EDT From: Hugh Fraser Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, fraser_h@EIS.DOFASCO.CA To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BB2D.0A98B1E0.5283@eis.dofasco.ca> Subject: RE: MX to Microsoft mail - possible??? Charon and Pmail tie into Novell's MHS and are not compatible with MSMail. The simplest way will be to get Microsoft's SMTP gateway software and run it on a spare PC. We've recently installed Microsoft's X.400 gateway to provide connections into MVS Profs and DEC All-In-1. The connection through DEC's Mailbus is possible, but there are some complications with DEC's X.400 that would make SMTP a much nicer and simpler method. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 16:00:49 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 08:48:39 EDT From: kish@DRWHO.IAC.HONEYWELL.COM Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, kish@DRWHO.IAC.HONEYWELL.COM To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BB2A.609BAAB9.646@DRWHO.IAC.HONEYWELL.COM> Subject: RE: MX to Microsoft mail - possible??? Microsoft has a SMTP mail gateway which seems to work fine. We also access MS mail users through a bizare route. SMTP to a HP X400 gateway which links via X.25 to a MS mail X400 gateway which ties into the MS mail. The SMTP gateway is by far the easier way to go. It about 500-700 US $ from what I hear third hand.... KISH@DRWHO.IAC.HONEYWELL.COM ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 17:37:31 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 20:24:21 MET_DST From: pizzorno@vms.gmd.de Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, pizzorno@VMS.GMD.DE To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, fraser_h@EIS.DOFASCO.CA Message-ID: <0096BB8B.9138EF36.943@vms.gmd.de> Subject: RE: MX to Microsoft mail - possible??? >The connection through DEC's Mailbus is possible, but there are some >complications with DEC's X.400 that would make SMTP a much nicer and >simpler method. A colleague of mine evaluated DEC's X.400 and told me that, much to his deception (being a DEC fan), the stuff was barely usable... .. Juan ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 17:44:26 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, lesher@LACERTA.UNM.EDU Subject: Problem with MX writing the domain wrong. Date: 28 Apr 1993 18:24:37 GMT Message-ID: <1rmi55INNplq@lynx.unm.edu> Keywords: MX, Domain To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Hi, I've recently became the system manager of a cluster consisting of a VaxStation 4000/90 and a VaxStation 3100. I noticed that MX has a bug when sending mail outside of our domain (unm.edu). It seems that it puts: user@libra.my.domain instead of user@libra.unm.edu. There is also a cluster alias if that matters. Being new to MX, I have looked at everything I can think of and I can't find what's wrong. If someone could help out or point me in the right direction, I'd be most greatful. Following is the output for the command: $ MCP SHO ALL /OUTPUT=MCP.DAT Thanks! Kelly Lesher lesher@unm.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MX version id is: MX V3.1C Domain-to-path mappings: Domain="libra", Path=Local Domain="libra.unm.edu", Path=Local Domain="lucky", Path=Local Domain="lucky.unm.edu", Path=Local Domain="[129.24.11.29]", Path=Local Domain="[129.24.9.245]", Path=Local Domain="law", Path=Local Domain="law.unm.edu", Path=Local Domain="*.UUCP", Path=SMTP, Route="uunet.uu.net" Domain="*.BITNET", Path=SMTP, Route="cunyvm.cuny.edu" Domain="*", Path=SMTP Aliases: LocalName="Postmaster", Address="system@libra" LocalName="POSTMAST", Address="system@libra" LocalName="freese@juris.unm.edu", Address="freese@libra" SMTP agent settings: Retry interval: 0 00:30:00.00 Maximum number of retries: 96 Number of DNS failure retries: 12 Accounting: disabled Default router: (none) LOCAL agent settings: DECnet delivery retry interval: 0 00:30:00.00 Maximum number of retries: 96 Accounting disabled. Top headers: FROM,SENDER,TO,RESENT_TO,CC,RESENT_CC,BCC,RESENT_BCC,MESSAGE_ID, RESENT_MESSAGE_ID,IN_REPLY_TO,REFERENCES,KEYWORDS,SUBJECT, ENCRYPTED,DATE,REPLY_TO,RECEIVED,RESENT_REPLY_TO,RESENT_FROM, RESENT_SENDER,RESENT_DATE,RETURN_PATH,OTHER Bottom headers: (none) ROUTER agent settings: Automatic percent-hack handling: enabled JNET agent settings: Automatic percent-hack handling: enabled BSMTP replies: disabled Accounting: disabled Lenient about gatewaying mail: no No mailer username set. DECnet_SMTP agent settings: Retry interval: 0 00:30:00.00 Maximum number of retries: 96 Accounting disabled. SITE agent settings: Retry interval: 0 00:30:00.00 Maximum number of retries: 96 X25_SMTP agent settings: Retry interval: 0 00:30:00.00 Maximum number of retries: 96 Accounting disabled. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 20:24:36 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: Problem with MX writing the domain wrong. Message-ID: <0096BB5D.D7331440@buckie.HSC.Colorado.EDU> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, dwing@uh01.colorado.edu Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 21:01:44 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <1rmi55INNplq@lynx.unm.edu>, lesher@lacerta.unm.edu (Kelly Lesher CIRT) writes: >I've recently became the system manager of a cluster consisting of a >VaxStation 4000/90 and a VaxStation 3100. I noticed that MX has a bug >when sending mail outside of our domain (unm.edu). It seems that it >puts: user@libra.my.domain instead of user@libra.unm.edu. There is also >a cluster alias if that matters. Being new to MX, I have looked at >everything I can think of and I can't find what's wrong. If someone could >help out or point me in the right direction, I'd be most greatful. >Following is the output for the command: Do you mean it puts "MY.DOMAIN" in there? Sounds like MX_VMSMAIL_LOCALHOST and MX_NODE_NAME have "MY.DOMAIN" in them instead of your real-live domain (UNM.EDU). You can change these logicals by (carefully) editing MX_ROOT:[000000]MX_LOGICALS.DAT, shutting down MX, and restarting it on all nodes in the VAXcluster. -d -Dan Wing, Systems Administrator, University Hospital, Denver dwing@uh01.colorado.edu or wing_d@ucolmcc.bitnet ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 00:21:32 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: 28 Apr 1993 10:28:51 -0600 (MDT) From: ccvax@academic.cc.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Problems with DECNET addresses To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, CCVAX@cc.colorado.edu Message-ID: <0096BB38.60AE5980.15374@academic.cc.colorado.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT >ccvax@academic.cc.colorado.edu writes: >> >>Using MX3.1c, VMS 5.4-2, UCX 1.3c (it will all be upgraded in JUNE) on >>a Microvax 3400, we are trying to communicate with users in >>Hutchinson, Kansas who have an email address of the form >> >> apple::adlarry@hutchcc.edu >> >>I can sucessfully send a message via MX with the following scheme: >> >> mx%"'apple::adlarry'@hutchcc.edu" or >> mx%"'apple..adlarry'@hutchcc.edu" >> >>However, they have never been able to send a message to us, and the >>undelivered messages never get returned to them. Until late last week >[...] >>I assume the problem is in the embedded .. in the Return-path and From >>headers. We seem to be the only site they send to with this delivery problem. >[...] >>10:18:43.49 %PROCESS, Processing address: >>10:18:43.50 %PROCESS, ... skipping: invalid syntax. >[...] > >>2. I don't have a copy of RFC 822 Standard for the Format of ARPA >>Internet Text Messages. Is this a valid address form or should it >>really be fixed at the source? They do send messages to lots of other >>hosts, and only seem to loose messages sent here. > >That address is not valid. The user portion must be quoted (as you >do when you send out using MX%"'apple..adlarry'@...."). Sounds like >a problem on the other end. > >MX can't be configured to accept this address. > >Hunter Thanks for the information. I'll coordinate with them to get it fixed. Karen ********************************************************************* * Karen Michels * * Academic Computing ccvax@cc.colorado.edu (internet) * * The Colorado College ccvax%ccnode@colorado (bitnet) * * 14 E. Cache La Poudre * * Colorado Springs, CO 80903 719-389-6457 * ********************************************************************* ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 09:33:52 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 13:47:08 EDT From: "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET, cmu-openvms-ip@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu Message-ID: <0096B9C1.BEEC9200.688@swdev.si.com> Subject: NETLIB documentation We are writing an IP application that we'd like to make independent of the IP package we're using. The IP packages with which we'd like to interface are DEC TCP/IP Services for VMS and CMU-OpenVMS-IP. There are several packages we know about that achieve this independence by using NETLIB routines. We'd like to know if the NETLIB routines would serve our purposes, too, but don't know where to find doumentation on them. Where might we find such documentation? -----------------------------+-------------------------------- Brian Tillman | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com Smiths Industries, Inc. | tillman_brian@si.com 4141 Eastern Ave., MS129 | Hey, I said this stuff myself. Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 | My company has no part in it. -----------------------------+-------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 09:44:46 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: RE: MX to Microsoft mail - possible??? Message-ID: <1993Apr29.074032.2875@inland.com> From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, allebrandi@INLAND.COM Date: 29 Apr 93 07:40:32 CST To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096BB2A.609BAAB9.646@DRWHO.IAC.HONEYWELL.COM>, kish@DRWHO.IAC.HONEYWELL.COM writes: > Microsoft has a SMTP mail gateway which seems to work fine. We also > access MS mail users through a bizare route. SMTP to a HP X400 > gateway which links via X.25 to a MS mail X400 gateway which ties > into the MS mail. > > The SMTP gateway is by far the easier way to go. It about 500-700 US $ > from what I hear third hand.... It's a little more than that -- I'm just now bringing it up myself and bought the software within the last month. Microsoft PC Mail V3.0 SMTP Gateway $3499.00 US Microsoft PC Mail V3.0 SMTP Access $ 699.00 US One copy of the SMTP Access component comes with the Gateway. This is the side you install in the post office. If you have more than one post office you need additional SMTP Access licenses. (eg, we have three post offices so I bought 1 Gateway and 2 Access licenses.) --- Tom Tom Allebrandi | Mail guru - DECUS UUCP Development Team Inland Steel Research Labs | NFS grunt - CMU/Tek-IP East Chicago, IN | Chairperson - VMSnet Working Group, DECUS VAX SIG 219 399 6306 | Internet: allebrandi@inland.com DECUServe: allebrandi | UUCP: ...!uunet!inland!allebrandi ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 11:30:27 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, rbp@NETCOM.COM Subject: someone can't subscribe: bad "From" line Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 15:19:25 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET someone is trying to subscribe to a list on my 3.2 MX, but is getting bounced. i created a temporary list and had him try to subscribe to that, while turning on debug logging for MLF, ROUTER, and UUCP. his from address is being rejected, but it is a "valid" mixed address to which MLF has no trouble replying with a rejection. heres' the relevent debug logs. note in particular the line that reads: >29-APR-1993 02:12:50.36 LIST_CTRL_LISTSERV: -- From: address invalid! any suggestions for how to track this down further? thanks, ----------------------------------------------------------------- MX_ROOT:[MLF]MX_MLF_LOG.LOG;1151 29-APR-1993 02:12:50.11 Processing queue entry number 5949 29-APR-1993 02:12:50.35 Checking local name: listserv 29-APR-1993 02:12:50.35 This is a list control address. 29-APR-1993 02:12:50.36 LIST_CTRL_LISTSERV: -- From: address invalid! 29-APR-1993 02:12:52.21 LIST_CTRL_LISTSERV: Message is from: 29-APR-1993 02:12:52.26 LIST_CTRL_LISTSERV: command is: SUBSCRIBE TEST-L-REQUEST 29-APR-1993 02:12:52.27 LIST_CTRL_LISTSERV: unknown list specified on command. 29-APR-1993 02:12:52.79 All done with this entry. MX_ROOT:[ROUTER]MX_ROUTER_LOG.LOG;5597 29-APR-1993 02:12:53.89 %PROCESS, Processing entry number 5950 29-APR-1993 02:12:54.05 %PROCESS, Status from READ_INFO was 00000001 29-APR-1993 02:12:54.05 %PROCESS, Recipient #0: 29-APR-1993 02:12:54.06 %REWRITE, No rewrite rules matched 29-APR-1993 02:12:54.07 %FINDPATH, domain name AMD.COM matched path pattern * 29-APR-1993 02:12:54.07 %PROCESS, Rewrote as - next hop amd.com, path 4 29-APR-1993 02:12:54.66 %PROCESS, Adding to UUCP path: . 29-APR-1993 02:12:55.35 %PROCESS, Path UUCP gets 1 rcpts, entry number 5951 MX_ROOT:[ROUTER]MX_ROUTER_LOG.LOG;5596 29-APR-1993 02:12:47.24 %PROCESS, Processing entry number 5948 29-APR-1993 02:12:47.56 %PROCESS, Status from READ_INFO was 00000001 29-APR-1993 02:12:47.56 %PROCESS, Recipient #0: 29-APR-1993 02:12:47.57 %REWRITE, No rewrite rules matched 29-APR-1993 02:12:47.59 %FINDPATH, domain name HALFDOME.SF.CA.US matched path pattern HALFDOME.SF.CA.US 29-APR-1993 02:12:47.59 %PROCESS, Rewrote as - next hop halfdome.sf.ca.us, path 1 29-APR-1993 02:12:47.59 %FINDALIAS, no alias found for listserv 29-APR-1993 02:12:47.59 %PROCESS, no alias found for listserv 29-APR-1993 02:12:47.59 %PROCESS, this is an MList or File req 29-APR-1993 02:12:48.16 %PROCESS, Adding to MLF path: listserv. 29-APR-1993 02:12:49.12 %PROCESS, Path MLF gets 1 rcpts, entry number 5949 MX_ROOT:[UUCP]MX_UUCP_LOG.LOG;2310 29-APR-1993 02:12:56.53 Processing queue entry number 5951. 29-APR-1993 02:12:57.71 DELIVER: Delivering to "epi!dd@amd.com" 29-APR-1993 02:12:57.71 DELIVER_FILE: Command: MAIL/PROTOCOL=UUCP_MAILSHR MX_UUCP_00000057.TMP;1 "epi!dd@amd.com" 29-APR-1993 02:12:57.72 DELIVER_FILE: Subprocess says: MAIL/PROTOCOL=UUCP_MAILSHR MX_UUCP_00000057.TMP;1 "epi!dd@amd.com" 29-APR-1993 02:13:08.38 DELIVER_FILE: Subprocess says: WRITE SYS$OUTPUT F$FAO("EXIT:!XL",F$INTEGER($STATUS)) 29-APR-1993 02:13:08.40 DELIVER_FILE: Subprocess says: EXIT:00000001 -- -- bob pasker -- rbp@netcom.com -- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 11:56:05 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: NETLIB documentation Message-ID: <0096BBFF.0233C440@buckie.HSC.Colorado.EDU> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, dwing@uh01.colorado.edu Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 16:15:16 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096B9C1.BEEC9200.688@swdev.si.com>, "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425" writes: >We are writing an IP application that we'd like to make independent of the IP >package we're using. The IP packages with which we'd like to interface are DEC >TCP/IP Services for VMS and CMU-OpenVMS-IP. There are several packages we know >about that achieve this independence by using NETLIB routines. We'd like to >know if the NETLIB routines would serve our purposes, too, but don't know where >to find doumentation on them. Where might we find such documentation? Anonymous FTP to PUBLIC.TGV.COM, and look in [.MADISON.NETLIB] -Dan Wing, Systems Administrator, University Hospital, Denver dwing@uh01.colorado.edu or wing_d@ucolmcc.bitnet ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 13:09:01 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: NETLIB documentation Message-ID: <1993Apr29.173853.21874@news.arc.nasa.gov> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, madison@tgv.com Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 17:38:53 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096BBFF.0233C440@buckie.HSC.Colorado.EDU>, dwing@uh01.colorado.edu (Dan Wing) writes: >In article <0096B9C1.BEEC9200.688@swdev.si.com>, "Brian Tillman, >Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425" writes: > >>We are writing an IP application that we'd like to make independent of the IP >>package we're using. The IP packages with which we'd like to interface are DEC >>TCP/IP Services for VMS and CMU-OpenVMS-IP. There are several packages we know >>about that achieve this independence by using NETLIB routines. We'd like to >>know if the NETLIB routines would serve our purposes, too, but don't know where >>to find doumentation on them. Where might we find such documentation? > >Anonymous FTP to PUBLIC.TGV.COM, and look in [.MADISON.NETLIB] And extract NETLIB_SRC.BCK from the ZIP file, then use BACKUP to extract the source code. There is no documentation on NETLIB, unfortunately. It's one of those things I never got around to writing. -Matt -- Matthew Madison | madison@tgv.com | +1 408 427 4366 TGV, Inc. | 603 Mission Street | Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 13:09:36 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 12:59:05 CDT From: "George D. Greenwade" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, bed_gdg@SHSU.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BC16.878151A0.30501@SHSU.edu> Subject: RE: someone can't subscribe: bad "From" line On Thu, 29 Apr 1993 15:19:25 GMT, Bob Pasker posted: > someone is trying to subscribe to a list on my 3.2 MX, but is getting > bounced. i created a temporary list and had him try to subscribe to that, > while turning on debug logging for MLF, ROUTER, and UUCP. his from address > is being rejected, but it is a "valid" mixed address to which MLF has no > trouble replying with a rejection. heres' the relevent debug logs. note > in particular the line that reads: > > >29-APR-1993 02:12:50.36 LIST_CTRL_LISTSERV: -- From: address invalid! > > any suggestions for how to track this down further? thanks, The logs looked clean from a quick perusal. What does the address look like on the From: line of the network headers?? I haven't looked at the code which does this checking (even if I did, I probably wouldn't understand it, but that always sounds authoritative 8-)), but MX is sort of fussy about what it reports as valid and invalid addresses (which I am thankful for!). It may be that it is choking on something such as a period in the personal name attached to that address. Matt followed the RFCs rather conservatively about addressing (and, again, thanks!) -- if a period is in a personal name, it should be a quoted string for the personal name. Best rule of thumb -- if you have a personal name string, quote it! Seems like some time back (in one of the MX 2.x versions) this was precisely the problem and once the user quoted her personal name string, everything worked fine. Regards, George %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% George D. Greenwade, Ph.D. Bitnet: BED_GDG@SHSU Department of Economics and Business Analysis THEnet: SHSU::BED_GDG College of Business Administration Voice: (409) 294-1266 P. O. Box 2118 FAX: (409) 294-3612 Sam Houston State University Internet: bed_gdg@SHSU.edu Huntsville, TX 77341 bed_gdg%SHSU.decnet@relay.the.net %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 14:24:04 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 14:23:36 CDT From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BC22.5629FA60.4110@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ What with all the talk about a new CREN-funded ListServ, etc., it has been suggested that MX not call its list server LISTSERV (or ListServ) because it is not 100% compatible with Eric Thomas's Revised LISTSERV. After talking to Eric about it, I've decided to change the name of MX's ListServ to something else. (LISTSERV will actually still be recognized, but the "official" name will be something else.) So what I need are ideas (and quickly: V3.3 is almost ready to go). The restriction: 8 characters or less. And keeping MX in the name would be best to help identify it. I've thought of: MXLSTSRV MXLSERV MX-SERVE MX-LISTS MXLISTS Other ideas? Preferences of those above? (VMSSERV and MAILSERV are out because they're used by VMSSERV and PMDF already.) Thanks. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 15:10:20 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 15:02:30 CDT From: Larry Horn Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, hornlo@OKRA.MILLSAPS.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BC27.C642A040.26500@okra.millsaps.edu> Subject: RE: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ How about "MXSERVER"? I like that because it has "MX", keeps the "server" part, but is a little more general since "list" isn't involved in the name. This leaves MXSERVER open to provide services beyond those expected of a list server without the name implying it's "just" a list server. (I know very little about list servers, so it may not make sense to extend features into a more general server). loh ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 15:54:04 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 16:49:09 EDT From: Helen Theresa Lucy Smit Kirchen Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, kirchen@VAX1.ELON.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BC36.AB4B67E0.24788@vax1.elon.edu> Subject: RE: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ mxlists gets my vote! terri ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Terri Kirchen, Academic Computing, 2306 Campus Box, Elon College NC 27244-2020 U.S.A. (919) 584-2295 kirchen@vax1.elon.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 16:26:14 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 16:13:02 EDT From: "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM To: WKUVX1.BITNET!mx-list@esseye.si.com Message-ID: <0096BC31.9FF43700.3822@swdev.si.com> Subject: RE: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ I'd vote for MXLSERV (or MXLSSERV) for the list server and MXFSERV (or MXFLSERV) for the file server (you want to keep them consistent, I would think). ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 16:51:00 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 14:44:25 PDT From: Ed Bates Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, ebates@uop.edu To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BC25.3E971920.26071@vms1.cc.uop.edu> Subject: RE: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ On Thu, 29 Apr 1993 at 15:02:30 CDT, Larry Horn wrote: >How about "MXSERVER"? > >I like that because it has "MX", keeps the "server" part, but is a little >more general since "list" isn't involved in the name. This leaves MXSERVER >open to provide services beyond those expected of a list server without >the name implying it's "just" a list server. > "MXSERVER" would be my second choice. To be more consistent with the other list servers (LISTSERV, VMSSERV, MAILSERV, etc.), I would rather see "MXSERV". -- Ed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Edwin J. (Ed) Bates VAX Administrator/Postmaster . . _ _ Senior Academic Consultant Internet: ebates@uop.edu | | / \ | \ Office of Computing Services AppleLink: U1441 | | | | |_/ University of the Pacific Telephone: (209) 946-2251 | | | | | Stockton, CA 95211 Fax: (209) 946-2898 \_/ \_/ | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 16:51:19 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 23:47:57 EDT From: Herve CHOPLIN - UNIVERSITE FRANCOIS RABELAIS - TOURS Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, CHOPLIN@FRUTRS51.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BC71.2D27AE60.9637@FRUTRS51> Subject: RE: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ MXLISTS seams to good choice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Herve CHOPLIN (System Manager and Node Administrator) UNIVERSITY FRANCOIS RABELAIS Computing Center (Bat. D) Parc de Grandmont 37200 TOURS FRANCE _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Phone: (33).47.36.69.03 E-mail: EARN/BITNET: CHOPLIN@FRUTRS51.BITNET X400: C=FR;AD=0;PR=UNIV-TOURS;S=CHOPLIN INTERNET: CHOPLIN@UNIV-TOURS.FR VMS PSI_MAIL: PSI%(2080)3708047411::CHOPLIN IXI VMS PSI_MAIL: PSI%2043083016::CHOPLIN VMS DecNet (EDUnet): RABLAI::CHOPLIN or 51410::CHOPLIN (node 50.210) Fax : (33).47.36.69.02 **************************************************************************** LA TOURAINE, JARDIN DE FRANCE - THE TOURAINE, GARDEN OF FRANCE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 16:54:54 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 23:51:00 EDT From: Herve CHOPLIN - UNIVERSITE FRANCOIS RABELAIS - TOURS Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, CHOPLIN@FRUTRS51.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BC71.99C2B880.9639@FRUTRS51> Subject: RE: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ I vote for MXLISTS for list server and MXFILES for file server ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Herve CHOPLIN (System Manager and Node Administrator) UNIVERSITY FRANCOIS RABELAIS Computing Center (Bat. D) Parc de Grandmont 37200 TOURS FRANCE _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Phone: (33).47.36.69.03 E-mail: EARN/BITNET: CHOPLIN@FRUTRS51.BITNET X400: C=FR;AD=0;PR=UNIV-TOURS;S=CHOPLIN INTERNET: CHOPLIN@UNIV-TOURS.FR VMS PSI_MAIL: PSI%(2080)3708047411::CHOPLIN IXI VMS PSI_MAIL: PSI%2043083016::CHOPLIN VMS DecNet (EDUnet): RABLAI::CHOPLIN or 51410::CHOPLIN (node 50.210) Fax : (33).47.36.69.02 **************************************************************************** LA TOURAINE, JARDIN DE FRANCE - THE TOURAINE, GARDEN OF FRANCE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 17:46:32 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: RE: name_conversion.c Message-ID: <1993Apr29.165712.1520@dmc.com> From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, munroe@DMC.COM Date: 29 Apr 93 16:57:12 EST To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096BA92.73345740.3093@WKUVX1.BITNET>, Hunter Goatley writes: > Fabien Marathee writes: >> >>I have installed gcc in order to compile name_conversion.c, but I miss >>str$routines and lib$routines libraries. Where do they come from? >> > I don't think this was ever answered. > > They come with VAX C. All they do is declare all of the STR$ and LIB$ > routines. You can probably just comment them out (or add your own > prototypes for the functions used). Don't they come with OpenVMS? In any event, the include files you want are: str$routines.h lib$routines.h which work just fine in my version of GCC. Dick Munroe ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 18:13:28 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Re: Problem with MX writing the domain wrong. Message-ID: <1rpfjsINNir9@lynx.unm.edu> From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, lesher@LACERTA.UNM.EDU Date: 29 Apr 1993 20:59:40 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096BB5D.D7331440@buckie.HSC.Colorado.EDU> dwing@uh01.colorado.edu writes: >In article <1rmi55INNplq@lynx.unm.edu>, lesher@lacerta.unm.edu (Kelly Lesher >CIRT) writes: > >>I've recently became the system manager of a cluster consisting of a >>VaxStation 4000/90 and a VaxStation 3100. I noticed that MX has a bug >>when sending mail outside of our domain (unm.edu). It seems that it >>puts: user@libra.my.domain instead of user@libra.unm.edu. There is also >>a cluster alias if that matters. Being new to MX, I have looked at >>everything I can think of and I can't find what's wrong. If someone could >>help out or point me in the right direction, I'd be most greatful. >>Following is the output for the command: > >Do you mean it puts "MY.DOMAIN" in there? Sounds like MX_VMSMAIL_LOCALHOST >and MX_NODE_NAME have "MY.DOMAIN" in them instead of your real-live >domain (UNM.EDU). > >You can change these logicals by (carefully) editing >MX_ROOT:[000000]MX_LOGICALS.DAT, shutting down MX, and restarting it on all >nodes in the VAXcluster. > >-d > >-Dan Wing, Systems Administrator, University Hospital, Denver > dwing@uh01.colorado.edu or wing_d@ucolmcc.bitnet Yes that is what I mean... "my.domain" gets used instead of "unm.edu". Here is the output of SHO LOG MX* Would it be easier to just reconfigure the software? Thanks again for everyone's help, Kelly Lesher lesher@unm.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (LNM$SYSTEM_TABLE) "MX_DEVICE" = "LIBRA$DKA300:" "MX_DIR" = "MX_DEVICE:[MX]" "MX_DNSMTP_DIR" = "MX_ROOT:[DNSMTP]" "MX_EXE" = "MX_ROOT:[EXE]" "MX_LOCAL_DIR" = "MX_ROOT:[LOCAL]" "MX_MAILSHR" = "MX_EXE:MX_MAILSHR" "MX_MAILSHRP" = "MX_EXE:MX_MAILSHRP" "MX_MSG" = "MX_EXE:MX_MSG" "MX_NODE_NAME" = "libra.unm.edu" "MX_ROOT" = "MX_DEVICE:[MX.]" "MX_ROUTER_DIR" = "MX_ROOT:[ROUTER]" "MX_SHR" = "MX_EXE:MX_SHR" "MX_SITE_DOM_EXPANSION" = "MX_EXE:DOMAIN_EXPANSION" "MX_SMTP_DIR" = "MX_ROOT:[SMTP]" "MX_VMSMAIL_LOCALHOST" = "@libra.unm.edu" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 18:32:52 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: RE: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ Message-ID: <0096BC29.68618160@buckie.HSC.Colorado.EDU> From: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 21:18:56 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, dwing@uh01.colorado.edu To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096BC27.C642A040.26500@okra.millsaps.edu>, Larry Horn writes: >How about "MXSERVER"? Or "MXserver". >I like that because it has "MX", keeps the "server" part, but is a little >more general since "list" isn't involved in the name. This leaves MXSERVER >open to provide services beyond those expected of a list server without >the name implying it's "just" a list server. "MXserver" would me my preference, too, especially if the functions of MX's FILESERV and LISTSERV could be combined (sortof like Eric's LISTSERV handles both file transfers as well as subscription reqeusts) -- if this would be possible, the name change could happen with V3.3 and combining FILESERV and LISTSERV could happen at a later version. From Hunter's list: > MXLSTSRV > MXLSERV > MX-SERVE > MX-LISTS > MXLISTS Either MXLISTS or MX-LISTS would probably be the 'easiest', although it looks like a mailing list instead of the processor -- there would be lots of room for confusion between addresses like: MX-LISTS@site (the LISTSERV processor) VMS-LIST@site (a mailing list on the node for VMS topics) MXLISTS@site (the LISTSERV processor) MODULA-L@site (a mailing list about Modula) MX-LIST@site (a mailing list at WKUVX1.BITNET about MX) So I think we'd have to use one of the others (MXLSTSRV, MXLSERV, or MX-SERVE). (I like MXSERVER most better :-) -d -Dan Wing, Systems Administrator, University Hospital, Denver dwing@uh01.colorado.edu or wing_d@ucolmcc.bitnet ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 20:07:07 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ Message-ID: <1993Apr30.020836.1@sejnet.sunet.se> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 02:08:36 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096BC22.5629FA60.4110@WKUVX1.BITNET>, Hunter Goatley writes: > MXLSTSRV > MXLSERV > MX-SERVE > MX-LISTS > MXLISTS I already voted in private for MXL because it is short, but I think MXSERVER is fine. The most important criterion is that the name should be idiot-proof. Run of the mill users work with an eye filter that translates all non-alphabetical characters to blanks or nulls, inserts vowels where it makes the word easier to pronounce in the local language/dialect and may omit or generate plural forms if there is an opportunity for that. Then you have a keyboard filter which inserts typos and sprinkles the result with spelling errors :-) So, if you go for MX-LISTS you will have MXLISTS, MXLIST, MX-LIST, MXLISTSERV, MX-LISTSERV and so on. In this respect MXSERVER is ideal as long as you also support MXSERV. MXL would not have this problem because it is so short that the eye filter is bypassed :-) At any rate, to clarify, concretely this is just going to be an alias for the LISTSERV@xyz address. This makes it possible for you to advertise your list with instructions of the type: "to subscribe to the blah list, just send a SUBSCRIBE blah command to MXSERVER@xyz". This makes it clear to the prospective subscriber that the list is run by MX, that sending a 'SET blah DIGEST' command along with the subscription is not a good idea, but that other MX specific commands will work. Nobody has been suggesting that commands sent to LISTSERV@xyz should not work. What started this discussion is that a number of people have started to boycott 'unix listserv' and company, and that the criteria one of them publicized is that he won't deal with anything that calls itself LISTSERV (as primary, rather than also-accepted name) but is not the real LISTSERV. Eric ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 20:43:02 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 20:42:29 CDT From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, lesher@LACERTA.UNM.EDU Message-ID: <0096BC57.443B1DE0.4319@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: Re: Problem with MX writing the domain wrong. writes: > >Yes that is what I mean... "my.domain" gets used instead of "unm.edu". Here >is the output of SHO LOG MX* > Do you have an MCP REWRITE_RULE that changes it? You might want to enable MX_ROUTER_DEBUG to see what the Router says it's doing with the address. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 00:36:59 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 16:35:16 -0600 (CST) From: "Stewart Nichols (512) 463.7601" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, NICHOLS_SA@PUMA.DIR.TEXAS.GOV Subject: RE: new name for MX's ListServ To: WKUVX1.BITNET!mx-list@esseye.si.com Message-ID: <01GXL9ET2YVQCTZ86N@PUMA.DIR.TEXAS.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I would prefer to see: INFOSERV as the new name for MX's ListServ. INFOSERV implies a greater range of potential services. Who knows what sort of transfer services we'll need to provide in the future? *--------------------------------*-------------------------------------* * Stewart Nichols * % whereis "Gary D. Kohler" * * Wide Area Network Specialist * % whereis "Wesley Douglas" * * Dept. of Info Resources, Texas *-------------------------------------* * * If you know where the above are now * * Work Phone: 512-463-7601 * working, please send me a message * * nichols_sa@dir.texas.gov * or ask them to send me a message. * *--------------------------------*-------------------------------------* ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 00:58:29 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, wayne@TACHYON.COM Subject: Re: MX playing tennis with DECUS UUCP - why? Message-ID: <1993Apr29.223311.163@tachyon.com> Date: 29 Apr 93 22:33:11 CDT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <1993Apr26.160141.81@centurylub.com>, wortman@centurylub.com (Bret D. Wortman: WordMan) writes: > I just installed MX031 and have followed all the installation > instructions, including post-install. > > My question is this: Outgoing and incoming mail all seems to bounce > between MX and DECUS UUCP. Example: > >>From decus.org!USERNAME Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:48:21 CDT remote from centlub >>Received: by centurylub.com (DECUS UUCP /2.0/2.0/2.0/); >> Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:48:21 CDT >>Received: from centlub by centurylub.com (MX V3.1B) with UUCP; Mon, 26 Apr 1993 >> 15:45:12 CDT >>Received: by centurylub.com (DECUS UUCP /2.0/2.0/2.0/); Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:41:22 >> CDT >>Received: from centlub by centurylub.com (MX V3.1B) with UUCP; Mon, 26 Apr 1993 >> 15:41:20 CDT >>Received: by centurylub.com (DECUS UUCP /2.0/2.0/2.0/); Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:15:40 >> CDT >>Received: by centurylub.com (MX V3.1B) with UUCP; Mon, 26 Apr 1993 14:53:24 CDT >>Received: from Topaz.DECUS.ORG by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via >> SMTP; id AA18561 for WORTMAN; Mon, 26 Apr 93 15:37:13 -0400 >>Received: from mr.decus.org by DECUS.Org (PMDF #2354 ) id >> <01GXGZT4FMCI8ZFKWH@DECUS.Org>; Mon, 26 Apr 1993 15:25:08 EDT >>Received: with PMDF-MR; Mon, 26 Apr 1993 15:05:36 EDT > > So what's up? This was an incoming message (username changed to > protect the guilty), and I can't figure out why no one wants to deliver > it. > > The UUXQT process appears to just stop whenever I start MX, it logs > nothing to UUCP.LOG, not even a "job scan" message. > > What am I doing wrong? This happened to me the first time I ran MX too. You don't have your paths defined right. It is necessary to tell MX what the local names are. In MCP, do a "define path" for each alias of the local node. In my case, it is: define path tachyon.com local define path tachyon.lonestar.org local define path tachyon local define path * uucp The more explicit names should precede the more general, i.e. "tachyon.com" should come before "tachyon". The MCP "sho path" should look like this when you're through. Domain-to-path mappings: Domain="TACHYON.COM", Path=Local Domain="TACHYON.LONESTAR.ORG", Path=Local Domain="TACHYON", Path=Local Domain="*", Path=UUCP It may not look like this at first, because the initial configuration puts "*" on the list automatically. Then your defined paths come after that. Since the paths are scanned in order, the "*" will prevent the local names from being seen. If it looks like this, it's not going to work. Domain-to-path mappings: Domain="*", Path=UUCP Domain="TACHYON.COM", Path=Local Domain="TACHYON.LONESTAR.ORG", Path=Local Domain="TACHYON", Path=Local Therefore you have to delete the "*" path (with "remove path"), then redefine it. That will put it at the end of the list where it belongs, as in the first display above. > > > WordMan > > BTW, is there a mailserver somewhere that has the new MX on it? My > site has a dialup connection only, so FTP isn't available. Thanx. Hunter is working on MX 3.3, but the most recent *released* MX is 3.2. Send the following in the body of a mail message to fileserv@wkuvx1.bitnet: send mx032 send fileserv_tools fileserv_tools is needed if you don't have mftu or unzip. Be warned, mx032 has 91 parts. > -- > _______________________________________________________________________________ _ > Bret D. Wortman __ __ ____ __ Century Lubricants Co. Wayne -- ============================================================================== Wayne Sewell |INET: wayne@tachyon.com Tachyon Software Consulting |UUCP: uupsi!uupsi6!tachyon!wayne P. O. Box 550937, Dallas TX 75355-0937 |Voice: (214)-553-9760, Fax: -553-0077 ============================================================================== "Them boys ain't drugged. They's just stupid." ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 01:12:10 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 01:03:34 CDT From: atubbs@kirk.msoe.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, atubbs@KIRK.MSOE.EDU To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: atubbs@kirk.msoe.edu Message-ID: <0096BC7B.BD1EA5A0.28640@kirk.msoe.edu> signoff ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 03:05:59 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 03:01:01 CDT From: Larry Horn Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, hornlo@OKRA.MILLSAPS.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: hornlo@okra.millsaps.edu Message-ID: <0096BC8C.259D2F60.27253@okra.millsaps.edu> Subject: RE: new name for MX's ListServ >From: "Stewart Nichols (512) 463.7601" >I would prefer to see: > > INFOSERV I think "MX" should be in there somewhere. After all, this got started with a "product identity" issue with LISTSERV . - ------------------------------------------ 30-APR-1993 03:00 C*T (USA) --- - Larry Horn / Millsaps College / Jackson, MS / hornlo@okra.millsaps.edu - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 03:51:33 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 10:44:37 MET_DST From: pizzorno@vms.gmd.de Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, pizzorno@VMS.GMD.DE To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BCCC.E906A036.1107@vms.gmd.de> Subject: RE: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ MXSERVER taking MXSERV as well. And as long as Eric's LISTSERV cannot be installed, an alias generated at the installation from LISTSERV pointing to MXSERVER. .. Juan ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 04:17:27 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ Message-ID: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, chris@csvax1.ucc.ie Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 08:29:56 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article 1@sejnet.sunet.se, eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas) writes: >In article <0096BC22.5629FA60.4110@WKUVX1.BITNET>, Hunter Goatley writes: >> MXLSTSRV >> MXLSERV >> MX-SERVE >> MX-LISTS >> MXLISTS > >I already voted in private for MXL because it is short, but I think MXSERVER is >fine. The most important criterion is that the name should be idiot-proof. Run >of the mill users work with an eye filter that translates all non-alphabetical >characters to blanks or nulls, inserts vowels where it makes the word easier to [...] >the criteria one of them publicized is that he won't deal with anything that >calls itself LISTSERV (as primary, rather than also-accepted name) but is not >the real LISTSERV. > > Eric Should something like that have MX in it ??? I have my doubts... I mean, isn't it bas enough at the moment with all the different ways of accessing lists.... If we are going for something then why not something generic... LISTMGR FILEMGR Rather than tying ourselves to MX.. (What if (heaven forbid) someone moves from MX to some other form of listserver...) Chaos for everyone on the net... --- Chris. + J.C. Higgins, Sys Admin + Auditor, Computer Science Society, U.C.C. + Chris@csvax1.ucc.ie + + Chris@odyssey.ucc.ie + If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't + C.Higgins@iruccvax.ucc.ie + come back to you, hunt it down and KILL it. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 06:33:57 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, wortman@CENTURYLUB.COM Subject: Rewrite rule for a DEC address Message-ID: <1993Apr30.005535.106@centurylub.com> Date: 30 Apr 93 00:55:35 CDT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Tonight I got a fun one. A message came in from a Digit looking something like this: <"A::B"@C.enet.dec.com> I'm running DECUS UUCP and MX3.1C. Right now we're using UUCP's rewrite rules. Are they preferable? Which do you folks use? Further, how would I go about setting up a rewrite rule that could handle this address in either direction under UUCP and under MX? The essential problem seems to be that he got subscribed to a list using the above name, but we can't send anything to him using that address, as everything going out fails when it hits UUCP. BTW - So far I *love* both products. Thanks to everyone responsible. WordMan -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Bret D. Wortman __ __ ____ __ Century Lubricants Co. wortman@centurylub.com / /_ /| / / / / /_/ /__/ 2140 S. 88th St. wortman@decus.org /__ /__ / |/ / /__/ / | / Kansas City, KS 66111 >>> Contact me if you're running DECADMIRE.... <<< ________________________________________________________________________________ "Where's the smegging Shake'n'Vac?" "Sorry, I thought you were food." ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 07:15:58 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 13:11:24 EDT From: SYSTEM Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, system@MPBVAX To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BCE1.6A91C540.3774@mpbvax> Subject: can't find domainname Hi, all mail witch we send, has no domainname. This means that nobody could be make on relay on it. Where ist the error. my configurationsfile: ! MX_DEVICE:[MX]CONFIG.MCP;5 ! Created: 4-MAR-1993 17:57:29.31 by MXCONFIG ! DEFINE PATH "mpbvax.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de" LOCAL DEFINE PATH "mpbvax" LOCAL DEFINE PATH *.UUCP SMTP/ROUTE="uunet.uu.net" !DEFINE PATH *.BITNET SMTP/ROUTE="cunyvm.cuny.edu" DEFINE PATH *.BITNET SMTP/ROUTE="ibm.gwdg.de" ! NOTE: The next path definition should always be LAST. DEFINE PATH * SMTP ! ! Done with routing information. ! DEFINE ALIAS "Postmaster" "boerner@bogart.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de" DEFINE ALIAS "POSTMAST" "boerner@bogart.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de" ! for BITNET compatibility Have anybody on idea ?? thanks and regards rudi email: boerner@bogart.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 07:53:44 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 14:48:11 MET_DST From: pizzorno@vms.gmd.de Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, pizzorno@VMS.GMD.DE To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, system@MPBVAX Message-ID: <0096BCEE.EFB6DBD6.1130@vms.gmd.de> Subject: RE: can't find domainname >all mail witch we send, has no domainname. This means that nobody could >be make on relay on it. Where ist the error. my configurationsfile: [deleted] >Have anybody on idea ?? Are you running UCX? If you are, do a UCX SHOW HOST/LOCAL , and check the first names returned by UCX for your host's address. If it doesn't contain the domain (i.e. "bogart" alone), you should change it so that the primary entry returns a FQDN (fully qualified domain name, i.e., "bogart.mipb-tuebingen.mpg.de".) .. Juan ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 07:54:12 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 07:50:34 CDT From: "George D. Greenwade" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, bed_gdg@SHSU.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BCB4.98482B00.1816@SHSU.edu> Subject: RE: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ Hunter has asked about a new name for ListServ, and any candidate is viable, so long as it makes some sense. The idea of retaining MX in the name is wanted by Hunter, which might be desireable. Automatically ruled out are VMSSERV, MAILSERV, LISTSERV because of prior use. I have to agree with Dan Wing, though. Be sure that the server address doesn't appear to be a mailing list!! If (and only if) the list processor and file processor could be moved into a single address/single agent would I personally support something along the lines of MX[-]SERV[E[R]] as, at least in our case, LISTSERV is busy, but FILESERV is a heck of a lot busier (about 25,000 files out this month alone!). How about an alternate candidate -- LISTPROC -- for list processor. After all, that's what it is and it's a variant of sorts from LISTSERV which is quasi-mnemomic. The mail returned indicates the version of MX, so anyone receiving mail from whatever it's called should be able to discern that this is a MX based product if the headers are intact. The variant chosen for use should be somewhat easy to recall (and the variants such as MXSRV aren't all that nice) and as the name is being limited to 8 characters, there's no need to waste a character on a hyphen. --George %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% George D. Greenwade, Ph.D. Bitnet: BED_GDG@SHSU Department of Economics and Business Analysis THEnet: SHSU::BED_GDG College of Business Administration Voice: (409) 294-1266 P. O. Box 2118 FAX: (409) 294-3612 Sam Houston State University Internet: bed_gdg@SHSU.edu Huntsville, TX 77341 bed_gdg%SHSU.decnet@relay.the.net %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 07:58:26 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, ake@DAYTON.SAIC.COM Subject: Re: Problem with MX writing the domain wrong. Date: 30 Apr 1993 08:39:50 -0400 Message-ID: <1rr6mm$bfp@dayub.dayton.saic.com> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Kelly Lesher CIRT (lesher@lacerta.unm.edu) wrote: : Yes that is what I mean... "my.domain" gets used instead of "unm.edu". Here : is the output of SHO LOG MX* : Would it be easier to just reconfigure the software? What TCP/IP transport are you using? My guess is there might be something messed up there. My guess is you are using UCX and the domain name is messed up there. Might want to check the logicals that go with the transport agent. I just FTPed to libra.unm.edu and it responds with 'libra' instead of the fully qualified domain name. Try this: $ UCX UCX> SET NOHOST 129.24.11.29 UCX> SET HOST "libra.unm.edu"/ADDR=129.24.11.29/ALIAS="libra" Also check sys$manager:UCX$INET_SET_INTERFACES.COM and replace the instances of just "libra" with "libra.unm.edu". BTW, this is documented in the release notes. -Earle -- Earle Ake Science Applications International Corporation - Dayton Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: NSI-DECnet (SPAN): 28276::ake ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 08:53:41 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ Message-ID: <1993Apr30.150732.1@sejnet.sunet.se> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 15:07:32 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article , chris@csvax1.ucc.ie (Chris Higgins) writes: > Should something like that have MX in it ??? So that users know which commands work and which don't? > If we are going for something then why not something generic... > LISTMGR > FILEMGR Hey, I just got this neat idea: why not LISTSERV? That's generic :-) > (What if (heaven forbid) someone moves from MX to some other form of listserver...) > Chaos for everyone on the net... Case 1, the new software is compatible, you make an alias for MXSERVER or whatever, problem solved. Case 2, the new software is not compatible but the command mailbox remains the same (LISTMGR or whatever), leading users to think they're talking to MX, BIG chaos. Eric ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 09:45:15 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 09:33:55 EDT From: "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, tillman@SWDEV.SI.COM To: boerner@bogart.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de CC: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BCC3.085485C0.4337@swdev.si.com> Subject: RE: can't find domainname rudi (boerner@bogart.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de) writes: >all mail witch we send, has no domainname. This means that nobody could >be make on relay on it. Where ist the error. You haven't supplied enough information. What are your MX logicals? The domain name usually comes from two logicals, MX_NODE_NAME, and MX_VMSMAIL_LOCALHOST. The first should have "yournode.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de" as the equivalence string and the second should look like the first, but with "@" in front, i.e., "@yournode.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de". These definitions are located in the file MX_DIR:MX_LOGICALS.DAT. Be careful editing this file. One other thing to check. If you are running DEC TCP/IP Services for VMS, make sure you have fully qualified your host names with the UCX SET HOST command. you must say something like: $ ucx set host/addr=123.4.5.6/ bogart.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de - /alias=("bogart.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de",bogart,"bogart") for each node in the UCX database. -----------------------------+-------------------------------- Brian Tillman | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com Smiths Industries, Inc. | tillman_brian@si.com 4141 Eastern Ave., MS129 | Hey, I said this stuff myself. Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 | My company has no part in it. -----------------------------+-------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 11:00:33 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ Message-ID: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, chris@csvax1.ucc.ie Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 15:21:01 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article 1@sejnet.sunet.se, eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas) writes: >In article , chris@csvax1.ucc.ie (Chris Higgins) writes: >> Should something like that have MX in it ??? > >So that users know which commands work and which don't? > >> If we are going for something then why not something generic... >> LISTMGR >> FILEMGR > >Hey, I just got this neat idea: why not LISTSERV? That's generic :-) Hey, now why didn't I think of that... :) > >> (What if (heaven forbid) someone moves from MX to some other form of listserver...) >> Chaos for everyone on the net... > >Case 1, the new software is compatible, you make an alias for MXSERVER or >whatever, problem solved. Case 2, the new software is not compatible but the >command mailbox remains the same (LISTMGR or whatever), leading users to think >they're talking to MX, BIG chaos. > > Eric But everyone else is moving towards "Standards", why move away.... The problem with an alias is that everyone picks their own, and I've seen enough problems with trying to explain the concept of "LISTSERV" to users without having to explain. LISTMGR / LISTSERV / list-REQUEST / MXLIST / MXFILE / FILESERV / VMSSERV / etc..... (Yea, I know the great thing about standards, is that there are so many to choose from..... :-) --- Chris. + J.C. Higgins, Sys Admin + Auditor, Computer Science Society, U.C.C. + Chris@csvax1.ucc.ie + + Chris@odyssey.ucc.ie + If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't + C.Higgins@iruccvax.ucc.ie + come back to you, hunt it down and KILL it. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 11:41:21 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: RE: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ Message-ID: <1993Apr30.180300.1@sejnet.sunet.se> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 18:03:00 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096BCB4.98482B00.1816@SHSU.edu>, "George D. Greenwade" writes: > How about an alternate candidate -- LISTPROC -- for list processor. Well, LISTPROC is what the NJE list processor is usually called. With JNET I think it runs in File_Daemon or the like, but the accepted generic name is LISTPROC as that is what IBM called it. Eric ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 11:53:45 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ Message-ID: <1993Apr30.180725.1@sejnet.sunet.se> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 18:07:25 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article , chris@csvax1.ucc.ie (Chris Higgins) writes: > But everyone else is moving towards "Standards", why move away.... There is no standard for list managers, unless you want to consider LISTSERV as a de facto standard, which most Internet people strongly object to, so I don't see a general move towards standards. If any, moving away from LISTSERV to *anything* else is a move away from standards. > The problem with an alias is that everyone picks their own, and I've seen enough > problems with trying to explain the concept of "LISTSERV" to users without having to > explain. > LISTMGR / LISTSERV / list-REQUEST / MXLIST / MXFILE / FILESERV / VMSSERV / etc..... Well the reality is that several incompatible packages do exist, with different names, capabilities and syntax. Maybe you'd rather hide your head in the sand and pretend this problem isn't there, but as a user I like to know whether I'm logged on to a VMS or unix system and whether I'm talking to MX's or XYZ's list manager. Eric ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 12:10:37 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, shuford@CS.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: America OnLine creates infinite mail loop Date: 30 Apr 1993 16:31:35 GMT Message-ID: <1rrk97INNmfb@CS.UTK.EDU> Keywords: RFC822, headers, America OnLine, AOL, mailing list To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0frJ7c_SMUgERMYkgc@transarc.com> Craig_Everhart@transarc.com writes: > > Excerpts from netnews.comp.mail.misc: 26-Apr-93 Re: America OnLine > creates .. Jason Haar@csc.canterbur (554) > > > In article <1rhlt4INNirb@CS.UTK.EDU> Richard Shuford > > (shuford@cs.utk.edu) wrote: > > > Maintainers of automated electronic mailing lists should beware that > > > the Internet e-mail gateway of the America OnLine commercial > > > conferencing system does NOT honor the RFC822 "Errors-To:" header. > > > > Just a wee point here - Errors-To is _not_ mentioned in RFC822 - in fact, > > ...if you're using SMTP, you're to use the SMTP ``RCPT TO:'' [sic] > argument as the address to which errors are to be reported. > (I call this the ``envelope from'' address.) > > I don't know if AOL.COM mail errors are sent to the RCPT TO: address for > incoming SMTP mail. In any case, the Errors-To: is in no protocol > document other than perhaps an old Sendmail manual and an > experimental/obsolete parenthetical remark in RFC 1035. All right, already. I've been flamed by mail and derogated in the newsgroup. And between the news system being down a day here and having a life other than running mailing lists, I have not gotten back to you about this thing. I do thank Hunter Goatley for making some effort to clarify what was going on. I made a little mistake. But AOL first made a bigger mistake. In my fatigue and haste on Monday afternoon, in my posting I mixed up the description of which header lines should be used for mail errors and which header line America OnLine is in fact using for mail errors. Allow me to clarify. Errors about mail messages being undeliverable should be sent to one of the following: the RFC821/SMTP "RCPT From" address the RFC822 "Sender:" address the RFC822 "From:" address, if "Sender:" is not available the header "Errors-To:" address, if any dares to include one after being lectured on its political correctness the header "Warnings-To:" address, in some cases with PMDF What America OnLine actually does use is not any of these. America OnLine, at least as of Monday, uses the RFC822 "Reply-To:" address Here follows the first of the many error messages AOL bounced back. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ | Received: from hp81.prod.aol.net by MIKE.LRC.EDU (MX V3.2) with SMTP; | Sun, 25 Apr 1993 14:11:19 EDT | Received: from sco1.prod.aol.net by hp81.prod.aol.net with SMTP | (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA15733; Sun, 25 Apr 93 14:14:37 -0400 | From: Postmaster@aol.com | X-Mailer: America Online Mailer | To: Info-Stratus@mike.lrc.edu | Subject: Returned Mail Unknown Member | Date: Sun, 25 Apr 93 14:10:18 EDT | Message-Id: <9304251410.tn89536@aol.com> | | The mail you sent could not be delivered; it was addressed to an unknown | user. The text you sent follows... | | I recently heard that version of FTX below 2.0 will support s$ calls for | moving from VOS to UNIX. If this is true, then could someone mention | the downside such as performance and possible conflicts. | | | ----------------------- Headers ------------------------ | >From uupsi7!mike.lrc.edu!owner-info-stratus Sun Apr 25 14:10:06 1993 remote | from aolsys | Received: from uupsi7 by aolsys.aol.com id aa05034; Sun, 25 Apr 93 14:06:45 | EDT | Received: from mike.lrc.edu by uu7.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) | via SMTP; | id AA01400 for jonschmidt; Sun, 25 Apr 93 13:58:53 -0400 | X-Listname: "Gatewayed with comp.sys.stratus." | Warnings-To: <> | Errors-To: owner-info-stratus@mike.lrc.edu | Sender: owner-info-stratus@mike.lrc.edu | Received: by mike.lrc.edu (MX V3.2) with SITE; Sun, 25 Apr 1993 13:46:53 EDT | To: | Subject: ftx support s$ calls | Message-Id: <1993Apr23.112341.20569@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> | From: dante@decoy.cc.bellcore.com (dante,joseph e) | Reply-To: Info-Stratus@mike.lrc.edu | Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 11:23:41 GMT | Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ | \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ During SMTP transmission, the MX software presented this envelope line RCPT From which may be regarded as the "Return-Path:" As you can see from the preserved headers, the address appears ONLY in the "To:" and the "Reply-To:" headers. America OnLine's gateway had to work pretty hard to find this address. But the AOL gateway did find the address, so it did dispatch the error message to the entire mailing list, and then the gateway worked equally hard each time the list host distributed the message to the entire mailing list, including the sad, nonfunctional "joeuser@AOL.COM". (Names have been changed to protect the presumed innocent.) Upon receiving each message distributed to the list, AOL.COM immediately generated a new error message in which THE ENTIRE PREVIOUS error message was embedded, and sent it back to Info-Stratus@mike.lrc.edu. This was an infinite loop of missives of ever increasing size. The fact that "joeuser@AOL.COM" was near the tail end of the mailing list slowed the frequency of bouncing. (I'm sure glad the mailing list is not alphabetized by hostname!) Otherwise the incident would have gotten even worse than it was before I could stop it. I thought that the community of people who use network e-mail would like to be warned about this. On Monday I caused a complaint regarding this behavior to be dispatched to "postmaster@AOL.COM", but I have detected no reply as of yet. -- ...Richard S. Shuford | "A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, ...shuford@cs.utk.edu | but the simple keep going and suffer for it." ...Info-Stratus Coord. | Proverbs 22:3 NIV ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 13:23:42 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ Message-ID: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, chris@csvax1.ucc.ie Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 17:15:14 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article 1@sejnet.sunet.se, eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas) writes: >In article , chris@csvax1.ucc.ie (Chris Higgins) writes: >> But everyone else is moving towards "Standards", why move away.... > >There is no standard for list managers, unless you want to consider LISTSERV as >a de facto standard, which most Internet people strongly object to, so I don't >see a general move towards standards. If any, moving away from LISTSERV to >*anything* else is a move away from standards. > >> The problem with an alias is that everyone picks their own, and I've seen enough >> problems with trying to explain the concept of "LISTSERV" to users without having to >> explain. >> LISTMGR / LISTSERV / list-REQUEST / MXLIST / MXFILE / FILESERV / VMSSERV / etc..... > >Well the reality is that several incompatible packages do exist, with different Thanks for pointing out the obvious :-) >names, capabilities and syntax. Maybe you'd rather hide your head in the sand No, but I would like to be able to relase a single document here on how users can subscribe to mailing lists..... Having LOADS of addresses makes this difficult. If there was a central list that stored *ALL* lists (Internet/LISTSERV..etc) then it would be possible to make this available to users to use. This would let them find out which style of requests to use, and all would be well..... But what happens if user B says to user A, "Hey, there is this great list on some.remote.site called XYZ-L ...", my user A doesn't know how to subscribe.... because they can't find out the type of service there. So it is from that aspect that I would be hesitant to moving away from the LISTSERV naming scheme. >and pretend this problem isn't there, but as a user I like to know whether I'm Forgot your smilie... ! >logged on to a VMS or unix system and whether I'm talking to MX's or XYZ's list >manager. That is grand for those who want to know, but what about those who don't need to know. If all list-servers support SUBSCRIBE / UNSUBSCRIBE then for the average user it doesn't really matter what type of machine they are using.... I know that there are problems with compatibility at the advanced level, but I don't see reason to add to it.... But, hey !! I'm easy... If it is MXLIST or whatever, then so be it.... I'll still use it.... :-) (I guess I've been spending too much time playing with OO concepts :-) > > Eric --- Chris. + J.C. Higgins, Sys Admin + Auditor, Computer Science Society, U.C.C. + Chris@csvax1.ucc.ie + + Chris@odyssey.ucc.ie + If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't + C.Higgins@iruccvax.ucc.ie + come back to you, hunt it down and KILL it. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 13:59:36 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 20:56:22 MET_DST From: pizzorno@vms.gmd.de Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, pizzorno@VMS.GMD.DE To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BD22.5EA543A6.1159@vms.gmd.de> Subject: Re: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ >Well the reality is that several incompatible packages do exist, with different >names, capabilities and syntax. Maybe you'd rather hide your head in the sand >and pretend this problem isn't there, but as a user I like to know whether I'm >logged on to a VMS or unix system and whether I'm talking to MX's or XYZ's list >manager. Ditto! .. Juan ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 16:12:07 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: MX on AXP Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 19:02:39 GMT Message-ID: <1993Apr22.190239.728@cpu.com> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, gwlester@cpu.com To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0096B6A0.86DAB0A0.11025@mail.ph.ed.ac.uk>, David Candlin writes: > Edinburgh, 22-APR-1993 > > While we are waiting for the field test of MX on AXP, we'd like the AXP >users to be able to send mail over DECnet (VMSmail) to a VAX in the same >cluster and thence to MX. What's the recipe? I tried > >vaxnode::"%mx""user@host""" Try: vaxnode::mx%"user@host" > >but it didn't like it. > > David Candlin ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 16:40:30 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 16:39:58 CDT From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0096BCFE.8D5D1080.4796@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: OK. "MXserver" it is. After seeing your comments (thanks!) and seeing the choices, I've decided to go with MXserver. The MX Router, which determines whether or not an incoming messages is destined for MLF, will recognize LISTSERV, MXSERVER, and MXSERV as the MLF processor address. All responses originating from the MX MLF will go out with the name "MXserver" instead of the current "ListServ". Thanks. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (or goathunter%wkuvx1.bitnet@UKCC.UKY.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 19:01:25 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: Wanted: new name for MX's ListServ Message-ID: <1993May1.013035.1@sejnet.sunet.se> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 01:30:35 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article , chris@csvax1.ucc.ie (Chris Higgins) writes: > No, but I would like to be able to relase a single document here on how users > can subscribe to mailing lists..... Having LOADS of addresses makes this difficult. What makes it difficult is having loads of different and incompatible systems, not having loads of addresses. What good is it to have a unix list manager where the syntax is 'add listname' call itself LISTSERV? Or did you mean you want to tell the users that the address is always LISTSERV but the command can have several forms depending on the phase of the moon, so that users send random commands until they succeed? > If there was a central list that stored *ALL* lists (Internet/LISTSERV..etc) then > it would be possible to make this available to users to use. This would let > them find out which style of requests to use, and all would be well..... As I said there is no standard. For now only LISTSERV provides this function. To subscribe to the XYZ-L list, just mail your subscribe command to any LISTSERV (for instance, LISTSERV@LISTSERV.BITNET). To post to the XYZ-L list, you can send mail to XYZ-L@LISTSERV.BITNET and, unless the list is confidential, it will be routed to the host running it. There is no Internet address for the LISTSERV.BITNET host because no politically correct hostname has been approved yet (obviously it shouldn't end in a country code since it is a global resource whose physical location may change). There probably never will be one, given that LISTSERV itself is generally considered politically incorrect. > If all list-servers support SUBSCRIBE / UNSUBSCRIBE then for the average > user it doesn't really matter what type of machine they are using.... The average user often turns on the DIGEST option, for instance, or the REPRO option. As far as I know, the syntax is different on all the list managers which do offer such options. Even SUBSCRIBE is different. LISTSERV picks up your name from the mail headers, so I can tell my users to send 'subscribe XYZ-L' if the address is LISTSERV. Other servers require you to supply the name every time. Some unix servers want an address. With Mailbase the command is JOIN, and some unix servers use ADD. Yet other unix packages require you to send the command to listname-request, with no parameter. That's what the reality looks like. Eric ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 19:22:29 CDT Sender: list-mgr@WKUVX1.BITNET From: Subject: Re: MX on AXP Date: 30 Apr 1993 23:32:03 GMT Message-ID: <1rsctjINN9dj@gap.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <1993Apr22.190239.728@cpu.com>, gwlester@cpu.com (Gerald W. Lester) writes: =In article <0096B6A0.86DAB0A0.11025@mail.ph.ed.ac.uk>, David Candlin writes: => Edinburgh, 22-APR-1993 => => While we are waiting for the field test of MX on AXP, we'd like the AXP =>users to be able to send mail over DECnet (VMSmail) to a VAX in the same =>cluster and thence to MX. What's the recipe? I tried => =>vaxnode::"%mx""user@host""" = =Try: = = vaxnode::mx%"user@host" That works from within MAIL. From the DCL command line, you need either: vaxnod::MX%"""user@host""" or, the above-mentioned: vaxnod::"MX%""user@host""" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.