Archive-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 00:06:39 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 00:06:12 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988437.D1073D40.527@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU> Subject: MX-LIST Administrivia: Monthly Post Posting statistics for list MX-LIST during November 1994 Total number of posts: 188 Total number of posters: 75 Total number of subscribers: 259 Total number of digest subscribers: 50 Last modified: 7-JUL-1994 10:04 (Updated version info) Welcome to MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU, 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. MX-List postings are also available in a daily digest format. To subscribe to the digest, send the following command in the body of a mail message to MXserver@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU: SUBSCRIBE MX-List-Digest "Your real name here" The MX-List archives are maintained at ARCHIVES@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU. 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.WKU.EDU, 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. MX itself is available via anonymous ftp from ftp.spc.edu in [.MX.MX041]. You can also get it via e-mail by sending the commands SEND MX and SEND FILESERV_TOOLS on separate lines in the body of a mail message to FILESERV@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU. To remove yourself from the mailing list, send the following command to MXserver@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU: SIGNOFF MX-List MXserver 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.WKU.EDU Western Kentucky University Academic Computing, STH 226 (502) 745-5251 Bowling Green, KY 42101 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 07:29:31 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 08:29:24 EDT From: "Michael H. Spence, Eastman Chemical" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098847E.1CBCCA20.38@stc150.kpt.emn.com> Subject: SMTP Message Routing I have a question about setting up MX and how messages are routed. In our environment host systems are not directly to the internet but go through a firewall. All messages bound for destinations outside the local domain must go through the gateway machine. However, I believe the way I have the system setup all messages (either for outside domains or local nodes) are being routed through the gateway. Our domain path looks like this. Domain-to-path mappings: Domain="stc150.kpt.emn.com", Path=Local Domain="stb150.kpt.emn.com", Path=Local Domain="150.223.90.34", Path=Local Domain="150.223.90.51", Path=Local Domain="DIGEST.SITE", Path=Site, Route="DIGEST" Domain="stc150", Path=Local Domain="stb150", Path=Local Domain="*", Path=SMTP, Route="emngw1.emn.com" Is it possible to keep messages destined for nodes in *.kpt.emn.com from passing through the gateway? ========================================================================== Michael H. Spence (mspence@emn.com) | Clarke's law: Computing & Telecommunication Services | Any sufficiently advanced Eastman Chemical Company | technology is indistinguishable Kingsport, TN USA | from magic. ========================================================================== ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 07:59:08 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: MX_SMTP processes dying! Date: 1 Dec 1994 10:03:32 GMT Message-ID: <3bk71k$n0c@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <3bin8m$lt2@mark.ucdavis.edu>, mikeb@radonc.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu writes: = =Twice now in the past month I have had all MX_SMTP processes across the =entire cluster quit on me. So far I haven't had debugging turned on, but =I may have to scare up enough disk space and give it a try (5 processes, =and probably 6000+ messages a day outbound). = =Here's the typical log file entries: = =14-NOV-1994 13:27:07.19: MX SMTP (pid 21A001E3) starting =30-NOV-1994 09:03:06.87: MX SMTP (pid 21A001E3) exiting, status = 00158264 =( = %LIB-F-BADBLOADR, bad block address) This is just a guess, but sounds like your queur file is corrupted. First, turn on debugging and delete the entry that causes the problem, and see if that helps. If it doesn't, try creating a new queue file (though that will lose all your old queue entries). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 08:13:30 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 09:13:18 EST From: smcneilly@fred.bridgew.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988484.3EC0EC40.3@fred.bridgew.edu> Subject: RE: MX_SMTP processes dying! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Mc Neilly email: smcneilly@bridgew.edu Assistant Director Phone: 508-697-1236 Information Services Bridgewater State College Bridgewater, MA 02325 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 09:48:31 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 10:48:25 EST From: smcneilly@fred.bridgew.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988491.88533AE0.5@fred.bridgew.edu> Subject: Re: MX_SMTP processes dying! Mike Bowers writes: >>Twice now in the past month I have had all MX_SMTP processes across the >>entire cluster quit on me. So far I haven't had debugging turned on, but >>I may have to scare up enough disk space and give it a try (5 processes, >>and probably 6000+ messages a day outbound). This won't help the real problem, but if disk space is a problem, then $ SET FILE SMTP_SERVER_LOG.LOG /VERSION_LIMIT=3, etc. This will minimize disk usage, but it will give you the log file you need if the problem occurs again. Sorry about the earlier empty message. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Mc Neilly email: smcneilly@bridgew.edu Assistant Director Phone: 508-697-1236 Information Services Bridgewater State College Bridgewater, MA 02325 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 10:22:42 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 10:20:53 EST From: Bob Christenson Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098848D.AFC072E0.1@fcstc1.frco.com> Subject: RE: SMTP Message Routing "Michael H. Spence, Eastman Chemical" writes: [SNIP] > Domain-to-path mappings: > Domain="stc150.kpt.emn.com", Path=Local > Domain="stb150.kpt.emn.com", Path=Local > Domain="150.223.90.34", Path=Local > Domain="150.223.90.51", Path=Local > Domain="DIGEST.SITE", Path=Site, Route="DIGEST" > Domain="stc150", Path=Local > Domain="stb150", Path=Local > Domain="*", Path=SMTP, Route="emngw1.emn.com" > >Is it possible to keep messages destined for nodes in *.kpt.emn.com from >passing through the gateway? Since I'm new at managing MX, please correct me if the following is wrong. If I am not mistaken, this setup is keeping the messages in st*150.kpt.emn.com local. You could add a statement like: DEFINE PATH *.kpt.emn.com LOCAL This should route any message in any sub-domain below kpt.emn.com through the local agent. I believe the logic for routing in your case would be that all messages NOT found in the preceding statements are routed via SMTP to the gateway which I presume is your firewall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Christenson - Sr. Systems Analyst | Inet Address: rachri1@fcseng.frco.com Fisher Controls Int., Inc. | Voice Phone : (515) 754-3854 R.A. Engel Technical Center | FAX Phone : (515) 754-2831 South 12th Avenue | Marshalltown IA 50158 | "Why ask why?" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 11:00:20 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: mikeb@radonc.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: MX_SMTP processes dying! Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 16:25:52 GMT Message-ID: <3bktdi$h31@mark.ucdavis.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU I wrote: > >Twice now in the past month I have had all MX_SMTP processes across the >entire cluster quit on me. So far I haven't had debugging turned on, but >I may have to scare up enough disk space and give it a try (5 processes, >and probably 6000+ messages a day outbound). > >... Additionally I've realized that both times I had deleted a message from the queue (MCR QUEUE CANCEL nn). And, it was a mailing list message to multiple recipients. I deleted it by using the queue number associated with the message, not the recipients (if that makes sense). Once I restart the SMTP processes everything goes ahead normally; ie, I don't need to resync the queue or anything. Mike =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Michael Bowers Internet: mikeb@radonc.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu University of California, Davis ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 11:22:39 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 11:22:02 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988496.3A97903F.25@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: MX_SMTP processes dying! mikeb@radonc.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu writes: > >I wrote: >> >>Twice now in the past month I have had all MX_SMTP processes across the >>entire cluster quit on me. So far I haven't had debugging turned on, but >>I may have to scare up enough disk space and give it a try (5 processes, >>and probably 6000+ messages a day outbound). >> >>... > > Additionally I've realized that both times I had deleted a message > from the queue (MCR QUEUE CANCEL nn). And, it was a > mailing list message to multiple recipients. I deleted it by > using the queue number associated with the message, not the > recipients (if that makes sense). > > Once I restart the SMTP processes everything goes ahead > normally; ie, I don't need to resync the queue or anything. > Yes, there's a bug in the new in-memory queue stuff that causes this when you CANCEL an entry that's in progress (at least, I think it should be in progress---it might happen even if it's not). I've seen this, but haven't had time to try to track it down yet. So don't CANCEL any entries. ;-) Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 12:04:33 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: "S.T.Hayes" Subject: DSNLINK To: MX-List@wkuvx1.wku.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com, info@service.digital.com Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 16:27:44 GMT Message-ID: <9412011627.aa25466@uk.ac.ed.festival> > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 12:26:58 MST > From: Ask me about Star Stare '95 > If you can't find the patch on DSNlink, have you tried the ftp site (a > lot of customers don't seem to know about this): > > Through WWW: http://www.service.digital.com/home.html > FTP: ftp.service.digital.com > > For more information on these services (or if you have problems) send > mail to info@service.digital.com . > > Mike I can access the home page, but I cannot get much further without an obligation ID and password. I have been in touch with the telephone support centre here, and they tell me that this service is not available in the UK. As far as they know, it is not available outside the US. ! Stephen Hayes, Edinburgh University Computing Service. ! S.T.Hayes @ ed.ac.uk, Tel: (+44) 0131-650 4990. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 12:11:55 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 10:58:10 MST From: Ask me about Star Stare '95 Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com Message-ID: <00988492.E561C020.2@borgil.cxo.dec.com> Subject: RE: SMTP Message Routing |>> Domain-to-path mappings: |>> Domain="stc150.kpt.emn.com", Path=Local |>> Domain="stb150.kpt.emn.com", Path=Local |>> Domain="150.223.90.34", Path=Local |>> Domain="150.223.90.51", Path=Local |>> Domain="DIGEST.SITE", Path=Site, Route="DIGEST" |>> Domain="stc150", Path=Local |>> Domain="stb150", Path=Local |>> Domain="*", Path=SMTP, Route="emngw1.emn.com" |>> |>>Is it possible to keep messages destined for nodes in *.kpt.emn.com from |>>passing through the gateway? Wouldn't you want a path like this: Domain="*.kpt.emn.com", Path=SMTP This tells it to use SMTP, but to go to the node and not through the gateway (since no route is specified). This is how I have my path setup for Digital's network ("*.dec.com") and it seems to work fine. Mike ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 23:42:43 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 16:29:00 +0000 From: WILLIAM WANG Y Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: subscribe mx-list william wang To: mx-list%wkuvx1.wku.edu%aarnet@mr.isd1.tafensw.edu.au Message-ID: <01HK6AZ6IPIE001T9S@mr.isd1.tafensw.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT subscribe mx-list william Wang ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 02:01:37 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: wing@tgv.com ("Dan Wing") Subject: Re: SMTP Message Routing Date: 1 Dec 1994 18:51:27 GMT Message-ID: <3bl5vf$odh@news.arc.nasa.gov> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <0098847E.1CBCCA20.38@stc150.kpt.emn.com>, "Michael H. Spence, Eastman Chemical" writes: #I have a question about setting up MX and how messages are routed. In our #environment host systems are not directly to the internet but go through #a firewall. All messages bound for destinations outside the local domain #must go through the gateway machine. # #However, I believe the way I have the system setup all messages (either #for outside domains or local nodes) are being routed through the gateway. #Our domain path looks like this. # # Domain-to-path mappings: # Domain="stc150.kpt.emn.com", Path=Local # Domain="stb150.kpt.emn.com", Path=Local # Domain="150.223.90.34", Path=Local # Domain="150.223.90.51", Path=Local # Domain="DIGEST.SITE", Path=Site, Route="DIGEST" # Domain="stc150", Path=Local # Domain="stb150", Path=Local # Domain="*", Path=SMTP, Route="emngw1.emn.com" # #Is it possible to keep messages destined for nodes in *.kpt.emn.com from #passing through the gateway? Sure, create another path like: MCP> DEFINE PATH *.kpt.emn.com SMTP and a "direct" delivery will be done. This path should be immediately prior to your "*" path (which will happen automatically if you're running one of the newer versions of MX). (Note also for the IP address local path to function correctly, you should use [150.223.90.34], as the syntax for deliverying to an IP address is: user@[1.2.3.4] and not user@1.2.3.4 ) -dan -Dan Wing, wing@tgv.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 08:51:29 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 09:51:08 EST From: "Up with fudge, down with nuts." Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-LIST@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988552.B2414897.17@vax6.drc.com> Subject: SMTP delivery agent crashes with access violation? I was out for a couple of weeks relaxing and came back to find that, starting yesterday morning, my SMTP delivery agent on MX version 4.1 is crashing. I enabled accounting and even set the debug logical and it crashes with a 1000000C error, an access violation ... with none of the fao directives filled in, of course. All else seems to be in working order, and this just started, how strange. Are there any thoughts out htere, I'd appreciate it. Dan Graham ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 12:10:29 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 10:10:24 PST From: Virtual Bill Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: Powers@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com Message-ID: <00988555.6318BE20.66@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com> Subject: Milnet Address Problem One of my users is having problems getting e-mail from a Milnet source. Occasionally he will get e-mail addressed to him from the Milnet orignator, but with his local VMS username, i.e., JONESJ rather than MX%"JONESJ@GTEWD.MTV.GTEGSC.COM". While in the header the following is received: Received: from Aurora.oafb.af.mil by mtv2.mtv.gtegsc.com (MX V4.0-1 VAX) with SMTP; Thu, 01 Dec 1994 15:58:31 PST Received: from hamfast.oafb.af.mil by Aurora.oafb.af.mil; Thu, 1 Dec 94 16:00 PST Received: by Aurora.oafb.af.mil with Microsoft Mail id <2EDE61DC@Aurora.oafb.af.mil>; Thu, 01 Dec 94 15:53:00 PST X-MX-Warning: Warning -- Invalid "From" header. From: hamfast.oafb.af.mil!COMMOPS (Comm Ops) <------ X-MX-Warning: Warning -- Invalid "To" header. To: gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com!jonesj (GTE TEST) <------ Subject: SPADOC NOTIFICATION (U) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 15:52:00 PST Content-Length: 1277 Content-Type: binary Message-ID: <2EDE61DC@Aurora.oafb.af.mil> Encoding: 50 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 As the MX postmaster I have gotten no error messages and the sender claims he to gets no error messages returned. The sender also states that the above is normal addressing for Milnet routing, but I can find no such format in RFC822, i.e. FQDN!name. Have I missed something? Next, is there a rewrite rule that I can define in MCP to compensate for this, and lastly, when the user at my end receives mail, why is it addresses as local, "To: JONESJ"? I am running V4.0 of MX and V5.5-2 of VMS. My user has not set a forwarding address in VMS Mail nor do I have an alias set up for him. ============================================================================= | Disclaimer: The contents of this message reflects my personal opinion and| | not those of my employer or the organization through which Internet was | | accessed. | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Bill Powers GTE Government Systems | | (415) 966-2757 internet: powers@powers.mtv.gtegsc.com | | fax: (415) 966-3401 | ============================================================================= ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 13:25:47 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: SMTP Message Routing Date: 2 Dec 1994 10:41:56 GMT Message-ID: <3bmtlk$t82@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <0098847E.1CBCCA20.38@stc150.kpt.emn.com>, "Michael H. Spence, Eastman Chemical" writes: =I have a question about setting up MX and how messages are routed. In our =environment host systems are not directly to the internet but go through =a firewall. All messages bound for destinations outside the local domain =must go through the gateway machine. = =However, I believe the way I have the system setup all messages (either =for outside domains or local nodes) are being routed through the gateway. =Our domain path looks like this. = = Domain-to-path mappings: = Domain="stc150.kpt.emn.com", Path=Local = Domain="stb150.kpt.emn.com", Path=Local = Domain="150.223.90.34", Path=Local = Domain="150.223.90.51", Path=Local = Domain="DIGEST.SITE", Path=Site, Route="DIGEST" = Domain="stc150", Path=Local = Domain="stb150", Path=Local = Domain="*", Path=SMTP, Route="emngw1.emn.com" = =Is it possible to keep messages destined for nodes in *.kpt.emn.com from =passing through the gateway? Sure. Just modify your configuration so that, between Domain="stb150", Path=Local and Domain="*", Path=SMTP, Route="emngw1.emn.com" There's a record that reads: Domain="*.kpt.emn.com", Path=SMTP That record will be processed before the "*" path, hosts of the sort you're intrested in will match, and you haven't defined an explicit route for them, so MX will try to deal with them directly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 13:26:24 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: RE: SMTP Message Routing Date: 2 Dec 1994 10:46:18 GMT Message-ID: <3bmttq$t82@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <0098848D.AFC072E0.1@fcstc1.frco.com>, Bob Christenson writes: ="Michael H. Spence, Eastman Chemical" writes: = =[SNIP] = => Domain-to-path mappings: => Domain="stc150.kpt.emn.com", Path=Local => Domain="stb150.kpt.emn.com", Path=Local => Domain="150.223.90.34", Path=Local => Domain="150.223.90.51", Path=Local => Domain="DIGEST.SITE", Path=Site, Route="DIGEST" => Domain="stc150", Path=Local => Domain="stb150", Path=Local => Domain="*", Path=SMTP, Route="emngw1.emn.com" => =>Is it possible to keep messages destined for nodes in *.kpt.emn.com from =>passing through the gateway? = =Since I'm new at managing MX, please correct me if the following is wrong. = =If I am not mistaken, this setup is keeping the messages in =st*150.kpt.emn.com local. You could add a statement like: Not quite. It's keeping two nodes that match that, viz. stc150.kpt.emn.com and stb150.kpt.emn.com LOCAL. Given the subject line of his post, he wants other nodes that match the wild-card to be treated as SMTP hosts but WITHOUT going through the router he specified in his "*" route. Se my previous reply to his question for a description of how to accomplish that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 14:32:35 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 14:31:57 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988579.ED445CF7.2@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Milnet Address Problem Virtual Bill writes: > >One of my users is having problems getting e-mail from a Milnet source. >Occasionally he will get e-mail addressed to him from the Milnet orignator, >but with his local VMS username, i.e., JONESJ rather than >MX%"JONESJ@GTEWD.MTV.GTEGSC.COM". While in the header the following is >received: > Yes, that's because of: >X-MX-Warning: Warning -- Invalid "From" header. >From: hamfast.oafb.af.mil!COMMOPS (Comm Ops) <------ >X-MX-Warning: Warning -- Invalid "To" header. >To: gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com!jonesj (GTE TEST) <------ [...] >As the MX postmaster I have gotten no error messages and the sender claims he >to gets no error messages returned. He wouldn't. >The sender also states that the above is >normal addressing for Milnet routing, but I can find no such format in >RFC822, i.e. FQDN!name. Have I missed something? No, you haven't. That format is *not* an RFC822-compliant address. It *is* a UUCP-style address.... >Next, is there a rewrite >rule that I can define in MCP to compensate for this, No. >and lastly, when the >user at my end receives mail, why is it addresses as local, "To: JONESJ"? > Because the From: line is invalid. MX always wants to use RFC822 addresses; if it doesn't have one, it uses just the username. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 19:44:38 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 15:32:17 PST From: Virtual Bill Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988582.5AEDDB40.50@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com> Subject: RE: Milnet Address Problem >>One of my users is having problems getting e-mail from a Milnet source. >>Occasionally he will get e-mail addressed to him from the Milnet orignator, >>but with his local VMS username, i.e., JONESJ rather than >>MX%"JONESJ@GTEWD.MTV.GTEGSC.COM". While in the header the following is >>received: Hunter, I appreciate your quick response. There are a couple more questions that I have regarding this problem. In my above statement I should have included the statement that one of my users was only getting about half of what the Milnet source is sending. You might have surmized that, but I wanted to make that clear. >Yes, that's because of: >>X-MX-Warning: Warning -- Invalid "From" header. >>From: hamfast.oafb.af.mil!COMMOPS (Comm Ops) <------ >>X-MX-Warning: Warning -- Invalid "To" header. >>To: gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com!jonesj (GTE TEST) <------ >[...] >>As the MX postmaster I have gotten no error messages and the sender claims he >>to gets no error messages returned. >He wouldn't. >>The sender also states that the above is >>normal addressing for Milnet routing, but I can find no such format in >>RFC822, i.e. FQDN!name. Have I missed something? >No, you haven't. That format is *not* an RFC822-compliant address. >It *is* a UUCP-style address.... >>Next, is there a rewrite >>rule that I can define in MCP to compensate for this, Ok if there is no rewrite rule, is there anything I can do at my end to insure delivery of the e-mail messages coming from Milnet or are they getting lost before they even reach my site? Is there anything, short of telling them convert to another mail system, that I can suggest to the other end to help the situation? The user at my end is real antsy about this missing data. >No. >>and lastly, when the >>user at my end receives mail, why is it addresses as local, "To: JONESJ"? >> >Because the From: line is invalid. MX always wants to use RFC822 >addresses; if it doesn't have one, it uses just the username. How does MX know to use the "!name" portion of the invalid address? >Hunter Virtual Bill ============================================================================= | Disclaimer: The contents of this message reflects my personal opinion and| | not those of my employer or the organization through which Internet was | | accessed. | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Bill Powers GTE Government Systems | | (415) 966-2757 internet: powers@powers.mtv.gtegsc.com | | fax: (415) 966-3401 | ============================================================================= ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 21:36:49 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 22:38:50 EST From: kamrul@ycvax.york.cuny.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <009885BD.F12D2300.28210@ycvax.york.cuny.edu> Subject: queue is piling up Hi: We are using MX 3.3 and VMS 5.5. At the MCP> prompt 'sho queue' lists hundreds of messages. All of them belong to one specific user. And all the messages have the same error message: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output. It looks like MX Local agent cannot deliver message. It keeps trying. What should I look for? Any idea. Thank you. Kamrul Ahsan /\ 0 Kamrul Ahsan /\ // \ /\ York College, CUNY /// \////// \/ \\\ Jamaica, NY 11451 / //// \ \\_____ Voice 718-262-2754 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Internet: kamrul@ycvax.york.cuny.edu Bitnet: Kamyc@cunyvm ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 03 Dec 1994 05:50:10 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Sat, 03 Dec 1994 05:49:48 CST From: hunterl@uwwvax.uww.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009885FA.25E98980.9@uwwvax.uww.edu> Subject: RE: queue is piling up => => At the MCP> prompt 'sho queue' lists hundreds of messages. All of => them belong to one specific user. And all the messages have the => same error message: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as => output. It looks like MX Local agent cannot deliver message. It => keeps trying. On our system it means the user is exceeding his disk quota Lyle Hunter Computer Center University Wisconsin-Whitewater hunterl@uwwvax.uww.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 03 Dec 1994 07:28:07 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: SMTP delivery agent crashes with access violation? Date: 3 Dec 1994 08:55:16 GMT Message-ID: <3bpbpk$rch@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <00988552.B2414897.17@vax6.drc.com>, "Up with fudge, down with nuts." writes: =I was out for a couple of weeks relaxing and came back to find that, =starting yesterday morning, my SMTP delivery agent on MX version 4.1 is =crashing. I enabled accounting and even set the debug logical and it =crashes with a 1000000C error, an access violation ... with none of the fao =directives filled in, of course. You're looking at the wrong file. You want to look at MX_SMTP_DIR:MX_SMTP_LOG.LOG. That might tell you if a particular queue entry is causing the problem. =All else seems to be in working order, =and this just started, how strange. Are there any thoughts out htere, I'd =appreciate it. Could be that your queue file's become corrupted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 03 Dec 1994 18:31:33 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: queue is piling up Date: 4 Dec 1994 00:26:27 GMT Message-ID: <3br2bj$q24@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <009885BD.F12D2300.28210@ycvax.york.cuny.edu>, kamrul@ycvax.york.cuny.edu writes: =Hi: = We are using MX 3.3 and VMS 5.5. = =At the MCP> prompt 'sho queue' lists hundreds of messages. All of =them belong to one specific user. And all the messages have the =same error message: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as =output. It looks like MX Local agent cannot deliver message. It =keeps trying. = = What should I look for? Any idea. Look for that user being over his disk quota or having protected his MAIL.MAI or his mail directory against SYSTEM read and write access. You should be able to get a bit more information by trying to send VMS MAIL to that user from an unprivileged account (that should give you the same error message, but with the !AS SYS$FAO directive having been replaced by the name of the file that's causing problems. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 08:46:52 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 08:46:20 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009887A5.2403D709.9@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Milnet Address Problem Virtual Bill writes: > >>No, you haven't. That format is *not* an RFC822-compliant address. >>It *is* a UUCP-style address.... > >>>Next, is there a rewrite >>>rule that I can define in MCP to compensate for this, > >Ok if there is no rewrite rule, is there anything I can do at my end to >insure delivery of the e-mail messages coming from Milnet or are they >getting lost before they even reach my site? My guess is that they're never reaching your site. MX wouldn't just dump messages in the bit bucket because of a UUCP-style address. >Is there anything, short of >telling them convert to another mail system, that I can suggest to the >other end to help the situation? The user at my end is real antsy about >this missing data. > Suggest that they get with the times and send out valid Internet addresses to Internet sites.... >>Because the From: line is invalid. MX always wants to use RFC822 >>addresses; if it doesn't have one, it uses just the username. > >How does MX know to use the "!name" portion of the invalid address? > It doesn't---it takes the info from the RFC821 envelope header, which specified the local username. If you remember, old versions of MX used just the username in the To: line---what you're seeing is exactly like the old behavior (even though the To: line is invalid, MX knows who the message is for because of the RCPT TO: envelope header). Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 09:16:28 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 10:15:53 EST From: smcneilly@fred.bridgew.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009887B1.A6DECC40.18@fred.bridgew.edu> Subject: POP3 I am looking for information on POP3 and hope that some one can point me to a good source (books, manuals, anonymous ftp, whatever) or perhaps provide some information from their own experience. Last year some MX users recommended IUPOP3, available from ftp.indiana.edu. I followed that lead, and found that IUPOP3 is not nearly as well documented as MX, and hence this request for more information. Here's the problem. We are just finishing up the installation of a new data network on campus. (OK, we're a little little late coming to the party, but getting $2.5 million for a new network was not done quickly or easily.) Soon we will have hundreds of PC and Mac users wanting mail delivered to their desktops. Hence the interest in POP3. (We are also looking at POP client software, including Eudora, Connect II, and Z-mail.) Currently, we have a VAXstation running VMS 6.0 and MX 4.1 which serves as the post office for the campus. All mail addressed to user@BRIDGEW.EDU comes to this machine, which then forwards it to various VMS and UNIX computers, where users login and read (and send) their mail. (Mail coming in to the "post office" is addressed to user@BRIDGEW.EDU, and mail leaving it is addressed to user@host.net.BRIDGEW.EDU.) We would like to keep this structure, but with the addition of the POP server for users who want it. The POP server receives SMTP mail, stores it in a directory, from which it is later retrieved by a session with a POP client. Can we run both MX and POP on the same machine? If so, how would SMTP mail be addressed to the POP server as opposed to MX? Or must we have a separate computer for the POP server? Any warnings, recommendations, alternatives? Any suggestions or information would be greatly appreciated. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Mc Neilly email: smcneilly@bridgew.edu Assistant Director Phone: 508-697-1236 Information Services Bridgewater State College Bridgewater, MA 02325 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 09:20:40 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 09:20:03 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009887A9.DA29D679.31@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: POP3 smcneilly@fred.bridgew.edu writes: > >I am looking for information on POP3 and hope that some one can point >me to a good source (books, manuals, anonymous ftp, whatever) >or perhaps provide some information from their own experience. I haven't used POP3 much, but here's what I know. > The POP server receives SMTP mail, stores it in a directory, from >which it is later retrieved by a session with a POP client. Actually, the POP server doesn't receive SMTP mail. It handles POP connections and reads mail from VMS Mail files. >Can we run >both MX and POP on the same machine? Yes. >If so, how would SMTP mail be >addressed to the POP server as opposed to MX? You wouldn't---you'd just have VMS accounts for those users and they would use their POP clients to retrieve their mail that MX received and delivered as local VMS mail. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 09:35:11 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 09:35:01 -0500 To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: Dolan@Bible.acu.edu (Tom Dolan) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: queue is piling up >At the MCP> prompt 'sho queue' lists hundreds of messages. All of >them belong to one specific user. And all the messages have the >same error message: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as >output. It looks like MX Local agent cannot deliver message. It >keeps trying. Kamrul, On my system this usually means the MAIL.MAI file has become damaged in some way. As one subscriber said, it could mean disk quota is full. On my system this usually means MAIL.MAI has become corrupted - I think because two processes try to write email to the file at the same time. This happens regularly to MAIL.MAI files on our machine. Here is how to fix it: Go to the VMS mail MAIL> prompt. Type COMPRESS Type READ/NEW The compress command causes VMS to repair a damaged MAIL.MAI file and the read/new command causes VMS to reset the newmail counter correctly. This works EVERY time for us to fix the !AS error! Tom Dolan Dolan@Bible.acu.edu Systems Manager College of Biblical and Family Studies Abilene Christian University ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 11:37:27 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 17:26:18 GMT From: "John Hill, Cavendish Lab, Cambridge Univ. (01223-337243)" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009887ED.C7BC47B1.22@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> Subject: Re: queue is piling up >>At the MCP> prompt 'sho queue' lists hundreds of messages. All of >>them belong to one specific user. And all the messages have the >>same error message: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as >>output. It looks like MX Local agent cannot deliver message. It >>keeps trying. > >Kamrul, > >On my system this usually means the MAIL.MAI file has become damaged in some >way. As one subscriber said, it could mean disk quota is full. > >On my system this usually means MAIL.MAI has become corrupted - I think >because two processes try to write email to the file at the same time. This >happens regularly to MAIL.MAI files on our machine. > >Here is how to fix it: > >Go to the VMS mail MAIL> prompt. > >Type COMPRESS >Type READ/NEW > >The compress command causes VMS to repair a damaged MAIL.MAI file and the >read/new command causes VMS to reset the newmail counter correctly. > >This works EVERY time for us to fix the !AS error! > > >Tom Dolan Dolan@Bible.acu.edu >Systems Manager >College of Biblical and Family Studies >Abilene Christian University I would like to mention as an aside that there is a known bug in OpenVMS V6.1 (VAX and AXP) which under some circumstances can corrupt your mail file (the bug is actually in CONVERT). DEC strongly recommend you install the fix kit before allowing users access to VMS V6.1. The kits are (in the UK!): CSCPAT_1181010 for VAX AXPRMS01_061 for AXP (on the August MUPs/ECOs CD - there is also a CSCPAT number that I don't know immediately. It is possible that this may be the cause of the above problem. Regards, John Hill ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 14:31:38 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <9412052028.AA10203@us3rmc.pa.dec.com> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 12:28:54 PST From: Scot Bishop-Walker - DEC PC Integration 05-Dec-1994 1226 Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Subject: RE: POP3 Hunter - > You wouldn't---you'd just have VMS accounts for those users and they > would use their POP clients to retrieve their mail that MX received > and delivered as local VMS mail. Do you happento know where I can get my hands on an OpenVMS versino of a POP3 server? I'm sure they exist, but I haven't been able to find a pointer. Thanks! - Scot ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 14:35:49 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 14:34:46 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009887D5.D12E619E.11@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: POP3 Scot Bishop-Walker - DEC PC Integration 05-Dec-1994 1226 writes: > >Hunter - > >> You wouldn't---you'd just have VMS accounts for those users and they >> would use their POP clients to retrieve their mail that MX received >> and delivered as local VMS mail. > >Do you happento know where I can get my hands on an OpenVMS versino of a POP3 >server? > >I'm sure they exist, but I haven't been able to find a pointer. > IUPOP3 is on ftp.indiana.edu in /pub/vms/iupop3. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 17:18:33 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 15:17:59 PDT From: "Brian R. Kuhn" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009887DB.DACA5360.13@SD68.NANAIMO.BC.CA> Subject: Re: MX-LIST Digest V94 #226 > Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 12:28:54 PST > From: Scot Bishop-Walker - DEC PC Integration 05-Dec-1994 1226 > Subject: Re: POP3 > > > You wouldn't---you'd just have VMS accounts for those users and they > > would use their POP clients to retrieve their mail that MX received > > and delivered as local VMS mail. > > Do you happento know where I can get my hands on an OpenVMS versino of a POP3 > server? > > I'm sure they exist, but I haven't been able to find a pointer. > > Thanks! > > - Scot TGV's Multinet includes POP3 server support. Very simple! Very very simple!!! Dead easy!!! :-) Get my point :-) VMS context: POP clients such as Eudora use POP3 to get mail from the NEWMAIL folder. They can leave the newmail on the server or delete it after getting it. At that point the mail lives on the client (PC, MAC, etc.) disk space. To send mail, the POP client uses SMTP and must communicate with an SMTP server. The return address for the client should be the same as the POP server's address. Typically the POP and SMTP servers are the same. POP does not work well for folks that access VMS mail directly (terminal, dialup, etc.) and from their office desktop station. This is because mail transactions are NOT sychronized between the VMS mail store and the client's mail files. IMAP is a better solution overall given it's client/server nature, but it unfortunately is not well know nor is it well support by software - there is not a Windows version yet - only UNIX that I'm aware of. My 2 cents worth anyways. Any other folks care to comment on IMAP? Brian ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian R. Kuhn, Coordinator of Information Systems VOICE: 604 741 5289 School District No. 68 (Nanaimo), FAX: 604 754 6511 British Columbia, Canada DATA/2400b: 604 754 3630 DATA/SLIP/14400b: 604 754 9578 TELNET: bbs.sd68.nanaimo.bc.ca (username: GUEST) EMAIL: bkuhn@sd68.nanaimo.bc.ca Compuserve: 75430,3250 Home page: http://bbs.sd68.nanaimo.bc.ca:8001/welcome.html Gopher : bbs.sd68.nanaimo.bc.ca ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 19:07:40 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: Lutz.Pressler@Unix.Med-Stat.GWDG.DE (Lutz Pressler) Subject: POP3 server for VMS VAX (UCX3.1, MX) ? Date: 5 Dec 1994 22:39:36 GMT Message-ID: <3c04r8$mec@gwdu19.gwdg.de> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Hello, is there an implementation of a POP3 (postoffice protocol) server for VAX (OpenVMS 5.5-2 VAX, DEC TCP/IP Services.. 3.1, MX V4.1) somewhere out there? Have a nice day, Lutz (Replys by mail will be summarized here. Thank's.) -- Abteilung Medizinische Statistik Lutz Pre"sler Universit"at G"ottingen privat: Humboldtallee 32 Kreuzburger Str. 11 D-37073 G"ottingen D-37085 G"ottingen Tel.: (+49[0]551) 39-4956 FAX: -4995 Tel.: (+49[0]551) 7700178 ----> E-mail: Lutz.Pressler@Med-Stat.GWDG.DE / lpressl1@GWDG.DE <---- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 06 Dec 1994 10:55:24 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 11:50:28 -0500 (EST) From: "Ari Rabinowitz, WorkStations, x6518" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <941206115028.21000504@vax4> Subject: Can rewrite rules work on mixed addresses? Hi all, I have some users who are getting mail with from addresses of the form: host1!user%dom.ain@host2 which MX is currently forwarding to host2 for processing. I would prefer that it remove the host2 and rewrite the address as host1!user@dom.ain or just user@dom.ain but I can't get it to work. The rewrite rules I have tried are: Rewrite "<{USER}%{HOST}@host2.BEAR.COM>" => "<{USER}@{HOST}>" Rewrite "<{USER}%{HOST}@host2>" => "<{USER}@{HOST}>" But these don't seem to be matched. Is there anything that I can do, short of rewriting host2's sendmail.cf to figure it out? Thanks in advance for any help. I am starting to figure this out, but it is going slowly. Ari Rabinowitz -- Ari Rabinowitz rabinowitz@bear.com WorkStation Administrator Bear Stearns ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 06 Dec 1994 11:07:28 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 06 Dec 1994 11:06:58 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988881.F3BFDEED.17@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Can rewrite rules work on mixed addresses? "Ari Rabinowitz, WorkStations, x6518" writes: > >Hi all, > >I have some users who are getting mail with from addresses of the form: > >host1!user%dom.ain@host2 > Do you have automatic percent-hack handling enabled for the Router? MCP> sho rout ROUTER agent settings: Automatic percent-hack handling: enabled Sender header for outgoing VMS Mail messages: included if necessary MCP> If it's enabled, MX should do it already. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 06 Dec 1994 14:09:14 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 15:01:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Ari Rabinowitz, WorkStations, x6518" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <941206150136.21000504@vax4> Subject: RE: Can rewrite rules work on mixed addresses? "Hunter Goatley, WKU" writes: "Ari Rabinowitz, WorkStations, x6518" writes: > > > >Hi all, > > > >I have some users who are getting mail with from addresses of the form: > > > >host1!user%dom.ain@host2 > > > Do you have automatic percent-hack handling enabled for the Router? > > MCP> sho rout > > ROUTER agent settings: > Automatic percent-hack handling: enabled > Sender header for outgoing VMS Mail messages: included if necessary > > MCP> > > If it's enabled, MX should do it already. > > Hunter Hunter, Thanks for your rapid reply. I do have the percent-hack enabled, the problem is that the host2 is not the host running MX, but a Sun running sendmail. I am using that host to do the alias expansion and forwarding of the mail to the endusers, and that machine, or the IMAgate to cc:Mail, is adding creating the %-hack and adding the @host2. I have configured the cc:Mail gate to forward outgoing mail directly to my VaxStation running MX, but when users reply to messages, the to address comes to my VaxStation in the form I originally specified . I am trying to get the VaxStation to ignore the @host2 and just forward the mail to over UUCP to our firewall, which will have to figure out what to do with it. Why is the address not matching my rule: Rewrite "<{USER}%{HOST}@HOST2>" => "<{USER}@{HOST}>" Can this be done, or do rewrite rules only parse tokens at @ and .'s? Thanks, Ari -- Ari Rabinowitz rabinowitz@bear.com WorkStation Administrator Bear Stearns ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 06 Dec 1994 16:20:37 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 06 Dec 1994 16:21:01 EST From: Jerry Beech Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-LIST@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009888AD.D3490B09.3@FREESE.COM> Subject: Mailshr patch for VMS 6.1 Does any one have an updated Mailshr patch for VMS 6.1, or can someone tell me how I update the patch that we have for 6.0 to make it work with 6.1? We really, really would like to avoid using the old mx%"" convention. Our regular users just can not seem to figure it out. Jerry Beech jdb@freese.com Freese and Nichols, Inc. (817) 735-7268 Engineers * Environmental Scientists * Architects (817) 735-7494 FAX ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 06 Dec 1994 20:20:55 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 06 Dec 1994 21:18:05 EST From: Steve Kneizys Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009888D7.536CB8C0.6469@acad.ursinus.edu> Subject: RE: Mailshr patch for VMS 6.1 >From: Jerry Beech > >Does any one have an updated Mailshr patch for VMS 6.1, or can someone tell me >how I update the patch that we have for 6.0 to make it work with 6.1? > >We really, really would like to avoid using the old mx%"" convention. Our >regular users just can not seem to figure it out. > > >Jerry Beech jdb@freese.com >Freese and Nichols, Inc. (817) 735-7268 >Engineers * Environmental Scientists * Architects (817) 735-7494 FAX I am still using an old version of the patch, and for VMS 6.1 the patch area for VAXes is: ! The following was hacked by Claude Barbe - 24-Jun-1994 ! It applies to VMS 6.1 for VAX ! DEF MAIL$$ADD_ADDR 00004B9D ADD_ADDR 00004ACA EXI ! Now make sure that we have a patch area ! I still use an older patch, as the newer one (last fall?) did not just add my domain name at the end of user@host to make it user@host.ursinus.edu like the old one did. Instead, it changed it to host::user ... which would be fine if we have SCSNODE names and hostnames the same...but we do not. Have not checked the action of the latest though. Anyway... The full patch for VMS and AXP is available at ftp.wku.edu under mx/contrib I believe. (That was where Hunter sent me! :) Good Luck, Steve... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Steve Kneizys Stevo@acad.ursinus.edu | | Director P.O. Box 1000 | | Academic Computing Collegeville, PA 19426 | | Phone (215) 489 4111 x 2244 | | Ursinus College FAX (215) 489 0634 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 07 Dec 1994 19:45:36 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: Lutz.Pressler@Unix.Med-Stat.GWDG.DE (Lutz Pressler) Subject: Re: POP3 server for VMS VAX (UCX3.1, MX) ? [summary] Date: 6 Dec 1994 15:16:38 GMT Message-ID: <3c1v8m$9nq@gwdu19.gwdg.de> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU I wrote: : is there an implementation of a POP3 (postoffice protocol) server : for VAX (OpenVMS 5.5-2 VAX, DEC TCP/IP Services.. 3.1, MX V4.1) : somewhere out there? Replys from , , ... told me about IUPOP3 from Indiana University: ftp.indiana.edu:pub/vms/iupop3/ Just installed it - working fine for now. Lutz -- Abteilung Medizinische Statistik Lutz Pre"sler Universit"at G"ottingen privat: Humboldtallee 32 Kreuzburger Str. 11 D-37073 G"ottingen D-37085 G"ottingen Tel.: (+49[0]551) 39-4956 FAX: -4995 Tel.: (+49[0]551) 7700178 ----> E-mail: Lutz.Pressler@Med-Stat.GWDG.DE / lpressl1@GWDG.DE <---- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 07 Dec 1994 19:45:41 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: mrhine@gandlf (michael...2544) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: mx 4.1 and word perfect office gateway Date: 6 Dec 94 19:24:47 -0500 Message-ID: <1994Dec6.192447@gandlf> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU hi folks, anyone out there using mx 4.1 on vms 5.5-2 to server a word perfect office mail gateway for intel and motorola platforms? i would love to hear from anyone on the subject. the subject... tthanks... ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 00:22:07 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 07 Dec 1994 23:20:20 -0700 From: "Ray Harwood -- Data Basix: (602)721-1988" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: rharwood@Data.Basix.COM Message-ID: <009889B1.91D559DE.7561@Data.Basix.COM> Subject: RE: mx 4.1 and word perfect office gateway > From: mrhine@gandlf (michael...2544) First of all, your configuration is hosed... your system doesn't generate proper addresses. I forget how to fix this (you're probably running UCX), but you SHOULD fix it. > anyone out there using mx 4.1 on vms 5.5-2 to server a word perfect office > mail gateway for intel and motorola platforms? I've asked before, and not gotten any response. At my "day job", we have WP-Office on an 8550 "ZEUS" (with no TCP/IP), a 6520 "TITAN" with TGV's standard TCP/IP SMTP setup, and then an R/6000 "minerva" acting as a mail server with in/outbound UUCP via dialup. On the Office machine, the following address "makes it work": WPGATE::TITAN::SMTP%"someuser@someplace.COM" (WPGATE is WP-Office's standard "send an EMail out of WP-Office" gateway.) I've tried setting up a configuration that would allow this to work: INGATE::"someuser@someplace.COM" (INGATE would be my name for the "Internet Gateway") but so far no luck. Any ideas folks? Ray ----- Ray Harwood | Data Basix | DEC Pro Networking Editor Voice: (602)721-1988 | PO Box 18324 | "Internet Resource Guide" FAX: (602)721-7240 | Tucson, AZ 85731 | Internet training & consulting RHarwood@Data.Basix.COM | Info@Data.Basix.COM | DEC small-system management ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 02:00:33 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: RE: Can rewrite rules work on mixed addresses? Date: 8 Dec 1994 07:57:59 GMT Message-ID: <3c6ea7$agr@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <941206150136.21000504@vax4>, "Ari Rabinowitz, WorkStations, x6518" writes: =Why is the address not matching my rule: = = Rewrite "<{USER}%{HOST}@HOST2>" => "<{USER}@{HOST}>" It should: 7-DEC-1994 23:54:57.69 %PROCESS, Processing entry number 8 7-DEC-1994 23:54:58.07 %PROCESS, Status from READ_INFO was 00000001 7-DEC-1994 23:54:58.07 %PROCESS, Message originated in VMS Mail. 7-DEC-1994 23:54:58.08 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on envelope addresses. 7-DEC-1994 23:54:58.09 %PROCESS, Processing address: 7-DEC-1994 23:54:58.10 %PROCESS, ... address now reads: 7-DEC-1994 23:54:58.11 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on message headers. 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.32 %PROCESS, Updating the QENT source address. 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.40 %PROCESS, Finished VMSmail-origin preprocessing. 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.40 %PROCESS, Recipient #0: 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.42 %REWRITE, Applying rewrite rule: <{USER}%{HOST}@{HOST2}> => <{USER}@{HOST}> to: 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.43 %FINDPATH, Site-spec expand on wiff04.gps.caltech.edu err=00000000 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.43 %FINDPATH, domain name WIFF04.GPS.CALTECH.EDU matched path pattern * 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.43 %PROCESS, Rewrote as - next hop wiff04.gps.caltech.edu, path 2 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.66 %PROCESS, Adding to SMTP path: . 7-DEC-1994 23:55:00.22 %PROCESS, Path SMTP gets 1 rcpts, entry number 9 =Can this be done, or do rewrite rules only parse tokens at @ and .'s? Did you remember to RESET your router agent after adding the rewrite rule? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 06:28:24 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 06:27:07 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Stacks Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: mx 4.1 and word perfect office gateway To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009889ED.307B6F48.1@adpce.lrk.ar.us> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT "Ray Harwood -- Data Basix: (602)721-1988" writes [snip] > >I've asked before, and not gotten any response. At my "day job", we have Add me to the list of "I've asked before..." too. We have also asked the WP folks, with no luck. [snip] >server with in/outbound UUCP via dialup. On the Office machine, the following >address "makes it work": > > WPGATE::TITAN::SMTP%"someuser@someplace.COM" > >(WPGATE is WP-Office's standard "send an EMail out of WP-Office" gateway.) We use a similar addressing scheme, WPGATE::ADPCE1::IN%"someuser@someplace.COM", where WPGATE tells WP Mail to "hand this mail off", and ADPCE1 is the cluster node name. >I've tried setting up a configuration that would allow this to work: > > INGATE::"someuser@someplace.COM" > >(INGATE would be my name for the "Internet Gateway") but so far no luck. Any >ideas folks? > I've been told the only workaround/fix is to write a SITE interface. For various reasons this is not a workable solution in our case. -- Rick +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Rick Stacks, Sr. Programmer Analyst | They that give up essential liberty | | Ark Dept Pollution Control & Ecology | to obtain a little temporary safety | | 8001 National Dr. / POB 8913 | deserve neither liberty nor safety | | Little Rock, AR 72219 USA | -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 | | email: stacks@adpce.lrk.ar.us | | |--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------| ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 07:02:20 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 07:55:36 -0500 Message-ID: <9412081255.AA20283@genrad.com> From: dongray@genrad.com (Derek Dongray) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU X-MX-Warning: Warning -- Invalid "To" header. To: "mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu" Subject: MX_RMAIL instead of UUCP_MAILSHR? I couldn't find a reference in either the UUCP docs or the MX docs but after having a problem with RMAIL while setting up DECUS UUCP, I discovered a reference to the logical UUCP_UUXQT_DCL_RMAIL_MX in the file UUCP_BIN:UUXQT_DCL.COM which redefines RMAIL to use the MX version. Comparing it with MAIL/PROTOCOL=UUCP_MAILSHR gave: $ RMAIL = "MAIL/protocol=UUCP_MAILSHR" $ rmail UUCP_DISK:[UUCP.SPOOL.uknet]D.UKNET_BR0_R3 "dongray" %PAS-F-VARINDVAL, varying index value is greater than current length $ RMAIL = "$MX_EXE:MX_RMAIL" $ rmail UUCP_DISK:[UUCP.SPOOL.uknet]D.UKNET_BR0_R3 "dongray" New mail on node ... Where is this documented and is it the recommended program to use? -- Derek Dongray, Systems Manager, GenRad Ltd., Cheshire, UK. E-mail : dongray@genrad.com or Derek.Dongray@GenRad.co.uk PSS : 234261600119::Dongray CompuServe : 70374,2745 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 09:35:01 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 10:29:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Ari Rabinowitz, WorkStations, x6518" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.EDU Message-ID: <941208102953.2120492f@vax2> Subject: RE: Can rewrite rules work on mixed addresses? Solved In message <009889B6.E594B100.12@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU>, Carl J Lydick writes: > In article <941206150136.21000504@vax4>, "Ari Rabinowitz, WorkStations, x6518" > writes: > =Why is the address not matching my rule: > = > = Rewrite "<{USER}%{HOST}@HOST2>" => "<{USER}@{HOST}>" > > It should: > > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:57.69 %PROCESS, Processing entry number 8 > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:58.07 %PROCESS, Status from READ_INFO was 00000001 > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:58.07 %PROCESS, Message originated in VMS Mail > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:58.08 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on envelope addresses. > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:58.09 %PROCESS, Processing address: > > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:58.10 %PROCESS, ... address now reads: > > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:58.11 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on message headers. > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.32 %PROCESS, Updating the QENT source address. > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.40 %PROCESS, Finished VMSmail-origin preprocessing. > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.40 %PROCESS, Recipient #0: > > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.42 %REWRITE, Applying rewrite rule: > <{USER}%{HOST}@{HOST2}> => <{USER}@{HOST}> > to: > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.43 %FINDPATH, Site-spec expand on wiff04.gps.caltech.edu err=00000000 > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.43 %FINDPATH, domain name WIFF04.GPS.CALTECH.EDU matched path pattern * > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.43 %PROCESS, Rewrote > as > - next hop wiff04.gps.caltech.edu, path 2 > 7-DEC-1994 23:54:59.66 %PROCESS, Adding to SMTP path: . > 7-DEC-1994 23:55:00.22 %PROCESS, Path SMTP gets 1 rcpts, entry number 9 > > =Can this be done, or do rewrite rules only parse tokens at @ and .'s? > > Did you remember to RESET your router agent after adding the rewrite rule? Yes, Carl, I did RESET my router. The difference between what I wrote and what you wrote is that you specified the right-most host as a variable, while I only want to match one particular host. I found my problem, though. I had entered the rewrite rule in upper case, but the host name was in lower case in the address, so it didn't match. When I removed the rule and redefined it with the host name in lower case it worked fine. Thanks for everyone's indulgence in this. Ari ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 15:26:15 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: burtonk@bobcat.lmc.edu (Kathy Burton) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Outgoing messages die from unprivileged accounts? Date: 7 Dec 1994 13:13:53 GMT Message-ID: To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU VMS 5.4-2, MX 3.0 Periodically, outgoing messages go through the queue, say they're finished, but don't get delivered - only from unprivileged accounts. Messages from privileged accounts go through. Rebooting fixes the problem, but it recurs after a few days. Any ideas? Could it be related to disk quota, and if so, whose disk quota? Kathy ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 16:26:12 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 16:25:21 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MadGoat-Announce@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: MX-LIST@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988A40.C2F19A61.5@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: MadGoat/MX BOF at DECUS Hi, all. If you're going to DECUS in Anaheim next week, you might want to make plans to attend the MadGoat/MX BOF! Matt Madison and I will both be there to talk with you about future directions of the MadGoat Software products, including MX, NETLIB, MadGoat FTP, MMK, etc., problems you may be experiencing, etc. The MadGoat/MX BOF will be held Monday, December 12, from 3:00-4:00 in room El Capitan A. (I still have some of the MX% buttons that Brian Schenkenberger bought for us last year---I'll be bringing what's left to the BOF to give away.) See you there! Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 17:44:17 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: xu@galton.psycha.upenn.edu (Song Xu) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: MX Local Crash, Please help Date: 8 Dec 1994 21:02:56 GMT Message-ID: <3c7sa0$c9v@netnews.upenn.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU I am running MX V4.1, UCX V3.1 on Open-VMS (AXP) 1.5-1H1. If I recall correctly, someone pointed out a few months ago that DEC MAILSHR file has bug which will crash my "MX Local" once a week. Do you know where I can get a good MAILSHR file? If you have a good one would you mind sending me a copy? Thank you very much in advance. (I called DEC and did not get much help.) Song Xu Systems Manager The following is the error message: ******************************* ENTRY 517. ******************************* ERROR SEQUENCE 4241. LOGGED ON: CPU_TYPE 00000002 DATE/TIME 6-DEC-1994 17:20:27.22 SYS_TYPE 00000007 SYSTEM UPTIME: 29 DAYS 08:18:16 SCS NODE: BBL VMS V1.5-1H1 HW_MODEL: 0000042D Hardware Model = 1069. NON-FATAL BUGCHECK KN16AA SSRVEXCEPT, Unexpected system service exception PROCESS NAME MX Local PROCESS ID 002B0019 ERROR PC FFFFFFFF 820902D0 Process Status = 00000000 00000009, SW = 01, Previous Mode = EXECUTIVE System State = 00, Current Mode = EXECUTIVE VMM = 00 IPL = 0, SP Alignment = 0 STACK POINTERS ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 22:58:44 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: sysbrc@albnyvms.bitnet (Gandalf the Grey) Subject: Re: POP3 server for VMS VAX (UCX3.1, MX) ? Date: 6 Dec 1994 13:53:46 GMT Message-ID: <3c1qda$d2u@rebecca.albany.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU We are using the POP3 server from Indiana.edu (write iupop3@indiana.edu for info). We run VMS 5.5-2 and use TCPware (in UCX emulation mode). Should work fine for you also. +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Brian R Cuttler | bitnet: sysbrc@albnyvms | | VMS System Manager | internet: sysbrc@albnyvms.albany.edu | | State Univ of NY at Albany | phone: 518-442-3906 fax: 518-442-3697 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ In article <3c04r8$mec@gwdu19.gwdg.de>, Lutz.Pressler@Unix.Med-Stat.GWDG.DE (Lutz Pressler) writes: >Hello, > >is there an implementation of a POP3 (postoffice protocol) server >for VAX (OpenVMS 5.5-2 VAX, DEC TCP/IP Services.. 3.1, MX V4.1) >somewhere out there? > >Have a nice day, > Lutz > >(Replys by mail will be summarized here. Thank's.) > >-- >Abteilung Medizinische Statistik Lutz Pre"sler >Universit"at G"ottingen privat: >Humboldtallee 32 Kreuzburger Str. 11 >D-37073 G"ottingen D-37085 G"ottingen >Tel.: (+49[0]551) 39-4956 FAX: -4995 Tel.: (+49[0]551) 7700178 >----> E-mail: Lutz.Pressler@Med-Stat.GWDG.DE / lpressl1@GWDG.DE <---- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 10:21:05 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 11:20:41 EST From: smcneilly@fred.bridgew.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988BA8.882C7040.4@fred.bridgew.edu> Subject: RE: Outgoing messages die from unprivileged accounts? Katny, check the diskquota for the SYSTEM account on SYS$SYSDEVICE. We had a similar problem here a couple of weeks ago and that was the culprit. Privileged accounts had the EXQUOTA privilege and so were OK. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Mc Neilly email: smcneilly@bridgew.edu Assistant Director Phone: 508-697-1236 Information Services Bridgewater State College Bridgewater, MA 02325 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 00:56:23 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: gaw@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Graham Wood") Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: MX_RMAIL instead of UUCP_MAILSHR? Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 10:30:22 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Derek, Nice to se you about. In my version of the MX documentation this (ver 4.1) is documented on page 3-13 of the installation guide. cheers, -- Graham Wood Pearpoint Ltd internet: gaw@pearpoint.co.uk fax: 0453-860048 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 00:56:29 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: toug@fevrier.enst.fr () Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: HELP: MAIL via NEWS Date: 10 Dec 1994 12:09:40 GMT Message-ID: <3cc5q4$6hr@bisance.citi2.fr> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Hello all, I would like to know if it exist a possibility to consult a mail on a distant machine via the news. Because, i have mail box on a machine that is different from this (where i am reading this news) and i haven't a mail box on this system. To sum up: I have a mail box on A and i can read the news on B and i haven't a mail box on B. Does it exist a possibility to read or to send a mail from B with the news? Thank you for all ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 00:56:37 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: Outgoing messages die from unprivileged accounts? Date: 10 Dec 1994 12:16:24 GMT Message-ID: <3cc66o$prr@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article , burtonk@bobcat.lmc.edu (Kathy Burton) writes: =VMS 5.4-2, MX 3.0 = =Periodically, outgoing messages go through the queue, say they're finished, =but don't get delivered - only from unprivileged accounts. Messages =from privileged accounts go through. = =Rebooting fixes the problem, but it recurs after a few days. Any ideas? =Could it be related to disk quota, and if so, whose disk quota? You're barking up the wrong tree: Once a message is in the queue, the same account delivers it. Period. The privileges of the origination account could only possibly matter in terms of getting the message into the queue in the first place. Perhaps if you were to REALLY admit that you don't know what's happening, enable debugging logs, and post those? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 03:06:12 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 09:01:03 GMT From: alder@bgers.co.uk (Ian Alder) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <9412120901.AA00232@agamemnon.bgers.co.uk> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe me from the list please. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 04:16:38 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <9412121116.AA00820@bogart.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: unsubscribe Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 11:16:06 +0000 From: rb@bogart.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 23:41:03 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: ccdarg@zippy.dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: Mailshr patch for VMS 6.1 Message-ID: <1994Dec12.100303.9164@zippy.dct.ac.uk> Date: 12 Dec 94 10:03:03 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <009888D7.536CB8C0.6469@acad.ursinus.edu>, Steve Kneizys writes: > > I still use an older patch, as the newer one (last fall?) did not just > add my domain name at the end of user@host to make it user@host.ursinus.edu > like the old one did. Instead, it changed it to host::user ... which > would be fine if we have SCSNODE names and hostnames the same...but > we do not. Have not checked the action of the latest though. There are comments in the patch file that point you at the appropriate change to make if you don't want user@host to go via decnet. This is also possible with the AXP 1.5 patch as well (although there are no comments telling you how to do this). However... I seem to recall seeing details of a patch for AXP 6.1 posted some time ago but a quick check in the MX contrib directory failed to find it. Did I imagine it as I shall likely need it soon? -- Alan Greig Janet: A.Greig@uk.ac.dct University of Abertay Dundee Internet: A.Greig@dct.ac.uk Tel: (0382) 308810 Int +44 382 308810 ** Never underestimate the power of human stupidity ** ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 23:41:12 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: SOCRBROU@vaxb (socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk ) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: problems defining names in mail Date: 12 Dec 1994 14:33:51 GMT Message-ID: <3chn0f$9rb@gensva.athena.livjm.ac.uk> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Hope this is the right group and someone can help... i'm a bit of a novice on the vax/vms machines but managed to find out about defining names in my login.com in order to use them in mail. eg def martin _socrbrou when i try to do this in order to send outside our internal mail i get an error message from the @ onwards: ie def martin _SMTP%"socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk" then mail using To:martin Invalid user @livjm.ac.uk can anyone tell me how to get past this. Thanks. __ socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk Liverpool John Moores University, UK. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 23:41:18 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: Finn Rasmussen Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: problems defining names in mail Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 16:36:51 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU On 12 Dec 1994 SOCRBROU@vaxb wrote: > Hope this is the right group and someone can help... > > > i'm a bit of a novice on the vax/vms machines but managed to find > out about defining names in my login.com in order to use them in mail. > > eg def martin _socrbrou > > when i try to do this in order to send outside our internal mail i get > an error message from the @ onwards: > > ie def martin _SMTP%"socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk" > > then mail using To:martin > > Invalid user @livjm.ac.uk > > > can anyone tell me how to get past this. Thanks. > > __ > socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk > Liverpool John Moores University, UK. > > Try def martin "SMTP%""socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk""" With this definition the name will contain the required quotation-marks in the address. It works on my VAX (VMS 5.4, MX 4.1) Finn Rasmussen fra@kemi.aau.dk ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 02:55:22 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 00:38:26 -0800 Message-ID: <199412130838.AAA14901@ix.ix.netcom.com> From: actuary@ix.netcom.com (LIONEL GOLDBERG) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Court Ordered Liquidation - Computer Memory - CPU's & Hdsk Drives To: minors@medraut.apple.com Choice Trading Company, Court Appointed Liquidators, have been assigned to liquidate the following Multi-Million Dollar inventory of computer Memory Chips, CPU's and Hard Disk Drives. All items are new and come with applicable manufactures warranty. Prices quoted include all state and local taxes plus shipping and handling. Order Cost Number Mfg. Description (EACH) Memory 1524 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 1x3 70ns 1 meg $ 25.00 1525 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 1x9 70ns 1 meg 25.00 1526 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 4x9 70ns 4 meg 100.00 1527 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 1x3 60ns 1 meg 26.00 1528 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 1x9 60ns 1 meg 26.00 1529 Toshiba 30 Pin Simms 4x9 60ns 4 meg 106.00 1624 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 512x36 70ns 2 meg 50.00 1625 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 1x36 70ns 4 meg 100.00 1626 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 2x36 70ns 8 meg 200.00 1627 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 4x36 70ns 16 meg 400.00 1628 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 8x36 70ns 32 meg 800.00 1624 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 512x36 60ns 2 meg 52.00 1625 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 1x36 60ns 4 meg 104.00 1626 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 2x36 60ns 8 meg 208.00 1627 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 4x36 60ns 16 meg 416.00 1628 Toshiba 72 Pin Simms 8x36 60ns 32 meg 832.00 Memory for the Macintosh 1122 Toshiba 1 meg x 8 Simm Module 70ns 1 meg 31.00 1123 Toshiba 2 meg x 8 Simm Module 70ns 2 meg 62.00 1124 Toshiba 4 meg x 8 Simm Module 70ns 4 meg 109.00 CPU's 1276 Intel 80486 DX/33 115.00 1277 Intel 80486 DX/50 188.00 1278 Intel 80486 DX-2/66 156.00 1279 Intel 80486 DX-4/75 358.00 1280 Intel 80486 DX-4/100 498.00 1281 Intel Pentium 80501-60 366.00 1282 Intel Pentium 80501-66 453.00 1283 Intel Pentium 80502-90 558.00 Hard Disk Drives Seagate Barracuda Drives 1351 Seagate ST11950N 8ms 3.5" 1.69 GB SCSI 658.00 1352 Seagate ST12550N 8ms 3.5" 2.1 GB SCSI 899.00 1353 Seagate ST15150N 8ms 3.5" 4.2 GB SCSI 1,526.00 1354 Seagate ST31200N 11ms 3.5" 1.05 GB SCSI 538.00 1355 Seagate ST11900N 9ms 3.5" 1.7 GB SCSI 628.00 1366 Seagate ST2400A 9ms 3.5" 2.1 GB SCSI 856.00 1367 Seagate ST15230N 9ms 3.5" 4.29 GB SCSI 1,454.00 1368 Seagate ST41080N 11ms 5.5" 9.08 GB SCSI 2,848.00 Western Digital 1366 Western AC2340 12ms 3.5" 340 MB IDE 122.00 1367 Western AC2420 12ms 3.5" 420 MB IDE 136.00 1368 Western AC2540 12ms 3.5" 540 MB IDE 160.00 1369 Western AC2700 12ms 3.5" 731 MB IDE 230.00 Conner 1372 Connor CFS420A 14ms 3.5" 420 MB IDE 138.00 1373 Connor CFA540A 10ms 3.5" 540 MB IDE 168.00 1374 Connor CFA1080A 10ms 3.5" 1080 MB IDE 408.00 ORDERING INFORMATION To order please use a company order form/letterhead or if for personal use, use a plain white sheet of paper with your return address. List the items desired by order number, the quantity and total cost. Send your order with check or money order payable to Choice Trading Company to: Choice Trading Company Order Processing Lot #1776 86228 Terminal Annex Los Angeles, Ca. 90086-0228 Orders are processed on a first come basis. Adjustments and refunds will be made immediately for items that have sold out. Please allow 2 to 3 Weeks for shipping. Due to court ordered restrictions we are unable to accept COD, phone or credit card orders. This public offering is valid through December 30, 1994. Any unsold inventories will be auctioned. For auction information please send a self addressed stamped enveloped to: Choice Trading Company Lot #1776 202 So. Broadway Los Angeles, Ca. 90012 (213) 856 6172 If you are unable to use this information, please pass it on to someone who may. Lionel M. Goldberg Actuary ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 08:16:33 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 09:15:15 EDT From: edgecombe@cloud.ccrs.emr.ca Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-LIST@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <00988DF2.81CE4240.7@cloud.ccrs.emr.ca> Subject: MX MLF blowing up with divide by zero fault For some reason, we got a n.HDR_INFO file of zero size (possibly due to the disk filling up, possibly due to other reasons). However, as this message was destined for the MFL exploder, when it read the message it bombed with an integer divide by zero trap, killing the detached job and effectively preventing the mailing lists from working. This is in version "MX V4.1 VAX"; which seems to be the most recent released. Could you put this on the list of things to be corrected, please, Hunter? Thanks --john John Edgecombe Canada Centre for Remote Sensing alternate Ottawa, Ontario, Canada "People who have simple pleasures should be admired ... and then executed." Garfield ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 12:59:39 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 10:18:54 MST From: Ask me about Star Stare '95 Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com Message-ID: <00988DFB.65C2E980.3@borgil.cxo.dec.com> Subject: RE: problems defining names in mail |>when i try to do this in order to send outside our internal mail i get |>an error message from the @ onwards: |> |> ie def martin _SMTP%"socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk" |> |> then mail using To:martin |> |> Invalid user @livjm.ac.uk yeah, its a pain isn't it... If you have MX, then you can use MXALIAS to define your names, but if you don't have MX then here is the Hack that I've used (I've given up trying to find the right number of parenthesis to use): $ DEFINE MARTIN "@SYS$LOGIN:MARTIN.DIS" Then create a file called SYS$LOGIN:MARTIN.DIS with the following line in it: _SMTP%"socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk" Now from mail, you will be able to say: To: Martin Good luck... Mike ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 15:58:15 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: RE: problems defining names in mail Date: 13 Dec 1994 21:46:58 GMT Message-ID: <3cl4oi$69h@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <00988DFB.65C2E980.3@borgil.cxo.dec.com>, Ask me about Star Stare '95 writes: =|>when i try to do this in order to send outside our internal mail i get =|>an error message from the @ onwards: =|> =|> ie def martin _SMTP%"socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk" =|> =|> then mail using To:martin =|> =|> Invalid user @livjm.ac.uk = = yeah, its a pain isn't it... If you have MX, then you can use MXALIAS = to define your names, but if you don't have MX then here is the Hack = that I've used (I've given up trying to find the right number of = parenthesis to use): I guess not knowing what you're doing IS a pain. Assuming that _SMTP% is really what he wants at the beginning of the addrress, then the way to solve his problem simply is: $ DEF MARTIN _SMTP%"""socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk""" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 20:52:17 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 21:18:16 -0500 (EST) From: del@giant.IntraNet.com Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: Court Ordered Liquidation - Computer Memory - CPU's & Hdsk Drives To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988E5782DDE9A0.202034ED@giant.IntraNet.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT In an attempt to keep this on topic: can MX be configured to only accept postings from _subscribed_ list members? If so, would it be uncharitable of me to recommend that MX-List be so configured? This type of posting (the parent of the topic, not mine ;-) will only increase, I fear. Some defense would be appropriate. Yours in spammage(tm), Del Merritt del@IntraNet.com IntraNet, Inc., One Gateway Center #700, Newton, MA 02158 Voice: 617-527-7020; FAX: 617-527-6779 All my opinions. Just say no to Clipper. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 06:03:34 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 06:02:57 CST From: Kenny Kon Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <00988EA0.CE967C60.32@BIBLE.ACU.EDU> Subject: MX-Digest Hi. Hope that I haven't missed out anything big on MX-Digest. Anyway I am trying to set one up for a list I have here called STONE-CAMPBELL. Here are the things I have done: 1) Created a list called STONE-CAMPBELL-Digest 2) Added a user in there called STONE-CAMPBELL@Digest.site 3) Created the files STONE-CAMPBELL-DIGEST.INFO and .HEAD 4) Added thisPATH which I copied verbatim from the instruction manual: define path DIGEST.SITE SITE/ROUTE=DIGEST 5) Also copied verbatim the rewrite rule: DEFINE REWRITE_RULE "<{u}@DIGEST.SITE>" "<{u}@DIGEST.SITE>" I still don't have any .INPUT file created in my MX_SITE_DIR yet. Am I doing #4 and #5 right? Thanks! ----- Kenny Kon 303 Tampines St. 32, #12-58 Singapore 1852, Republic of Singapore kenny.kon@bible.acu.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 06:33:21 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 06:31:17 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Stacks Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: problems defining names in mail To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988EA4.C449C768.1@adpce.lrk.ar.us> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT writes: > [snip] >=|> >=|> ie def martin _SMTP%"socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk" >=|> [snip] >= >= yeah, its a pain isn't it... If you have MX, then you can use MXALIAS >= to define your names, but if you don't have MX then here is the Hack >= that I've used (I've given up trying to find the right number of >= parenthesis to use): > >I guess not knowing what you're doing IS a pain. Assuming that _SMTP% is >really what he wants at the beginning of the addrress, then the way to solve >his problem simply is: > $ DEF MARTIN _SMTP%"""socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk""" excuse me, but I believe that the correct way to do the above (at least its the way that works on my system) is to use one of the following: $ ASSIGN "SMTP%""socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk""" MARTIN or $ DEFINE MARTIN "SMTP%""socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk""" >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL > -- Rick +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Rick Stacks, Sr. Programmer Analyst | They that give up essential liberty | | Ark Dept Pollution Control & Ecology | to obtain a little temporary safety | | 8001 National Dr. / POB 8913 | deserve neither liberty nor safety | | Little Rock, AR 72219 USA | -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 | | email: stacks@adpce.lrk.ar.us | | |--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------| ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 08:51:14 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 14:50:41 GMT From: "Andy Harper, KCL Systems Manager" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-LIST@WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988EEA.881DAE85.61@bay.cc.kcl.ac.uk> Subject: MX LOCAL process hangs in RWAST.. Recently, I've been experiencing hangs of the MX local process. We have a mixture of systems in a mixed-architecture cluster and the MX processes are spread around the systems. MX LOCAL runs fine (never hangs) on VAX running VMS 5.5-2 but seems to regularly hang on an ALPHA 2100 running VMS 6.1. All run MX 4.1. The process hangs in a RWAST state and, according to ANAL/SYST (great command name that!), is waiting for an EXEC mode ast that seems to be undeliverable. The process has a lock held on the FLQ file which causes all other MX processes to sit and wait indefinitely. I have to reboot the system containing the stuck MX local. Turning on debugging for MX LOCAL doesn't help - the log is empty for the process that has hung. I suspect I may have a corrupt queue entry causing this but can't seem to track it down; although this doesn't explain why the VAX processes continue on their merry way... I'ld be grateful for any thoughts on what might be the problem; how to track it down, how to deal with it etc... BTW, it would be really nice if someone could write an MX queue analyzer that would do a sanity check on each queue entry! Having find one, it could then (optionally) reset it. Regards, Andy Harper Kings College London ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:18:18 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:15:47 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Stacks Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: problems defining names in mail To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <00988EBB.BECBB708.1@adpce.lrk.ar.us> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Brian Tillman pointed out: > >>excuse me, but I believe that the correct way to do the above (at least its >>the way that works on my system) is to use one of the following: >> >>$ ASSIGN "SMTP%""socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk""" MARTIN >> >>or >> >>$ DEFINE MARTIN "SMTP%""socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk""" > >Well, then, you are mistaken. While your method is correct, so is the other. >They are exactly equivalent. >-- >Brian Tillman >tillman_brian@si.com I stand corrected... seems as tho I continue to learn something new everyday. Thanks Brian. :-) -- Rick +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Rick Stacks, Sr. Programmer Analyst | They that give up essential liberty | | Ark Dept Pollution Control & Ecology | to obtain a little temporary safety | | 8001 National Dr. / POB 8913 | deserve neither liberty nor safety | | Little Rock, AR 72219 USA | -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 | | email: stacks@adpce.lrk.ar.us | | |--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------| ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 16:14:48 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <9412142310.AA05941@bogart.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: unsubscribe boerner@bogart.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 23:10:45 +0000 From: rb@bogart.mpib-tuebingen.mpg.de Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 06:11:42 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 11:51:01 -0800 From: "Ian Miller - Softel Systems" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <21301151214991/78602@SCOTS> To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Subject: mime support, x25 support [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] A couple of random questions 1. any plans for MX to support mime for non-ascii messages ? 2. I see that MX will do SMTP over X.25 - what do people use this for and does it conform to RFC1090 ? ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 06:51:57 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 07:51:48 EST From: "Up with fudge, down with nuts." Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-LIST@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988F79.2E0DE90F.3@vax6.drc.com> Subject: Queue not being purged. I'm running MX 4.1 with Netlib 1.7 on a system and it seems to not be purging the queue. I don't have the extra FLQ processes running, but there should still be a purge every half hour or so, it seems to me. As it happens, this is not a very busy system, but every morning, there are about 100 queue entries that are not purged. A QUEUE PURGE command takes care of it, but it should be happening automatically. Everything else seems to be running well, incoming and outgoing mail is moving along. Any thoughts? Dan Graham ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 08:06:10 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 09:04:31 EST From: Spencer Yost Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-LIST@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00988F83.569F7C00.12@ledger.co.forsyth.nc.us> Subject: Another Christmas wish list for MX I have mentioned these once before in the past (early this fall) and didn't get any feedback (they were posed as questions before), but I would find these two items very useful and down right nifty: 1- I would like MLF to create archive files that more closely conform to RFC934. The archive files are not far from the RFC to start with. Maybe this would not be a hard change to make to the code? 2- I would like MX to allow the option of having MLF include "tags" in the subject line of any mailing list. This seems to be a popular request amoung my users. The tags would identify the list in the subject line. Although I don't have a mail package that does this, the requesters have packages that allow presorting/filing based on this tag. In the wonderful world of RFCs, there is probably one to deal with this too, but I have no clue which one it might be. I want Santa to bring me a new Alpha too! Thanks, +================================+====================================+ | Spencer William Yost | Mis Department | | Vax/VMS Systems Manager | Forsyth County Government | | Yost@ledger.co.forsyth.nc.us | 200 N. Main St Room 603 | | | Hall Of Justice | | | Winston-Salem NC 27101 | +=====================================================================+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 09:20:42 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:58:22 GMTST From: Erdosi Peter Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu CC: perdosi@tigris.klte.hu Message-ID: <00988FBD.270EEC20.281@tigris.klte.hu> Subject: SMTP processes flies Hello boys, I have a frequent problem with MX V4.1 on our VAX6510 system, running VMS5.5-2 and UCX 2.0d. This machine is a mailserver for our university, running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We usually check the mail-flow in the MX. Last time we have found a lot of mail in the queue, with an error message detailed below. We could not recognise the main reason, why it happend. In this situation, the SMTP processes are very slow, waiting for retrying an entry. But the entry is finished by other SMTP process or not exist. SMTP processes are computable, and runs continously, consuming a lot of buffered I/O, but I dont know what are they doing. These event happens after a day or less from MX startup. The only think we can do now to restart MX frequently. Some information for debugging follows: 1) MX_SMTP_DEBUG write: 15-DEC-1994 14:02:02.23 Processing queue entry number 144 on node TIGRIS 15-DEC-1994 14:02:05.79 Recipient: , route=192.84. 225.6 15-DEC-1994 14:02:06.79 SMTP_SEND: looking up host name 192.84.225.6 15-DEC-1994 14:02:07.65 SMTP_SEND: DSN_MXLOOK status is 0000001C 15-DEC-1994 14:02:07.65 SMTP_SEND: Failed, sts=0000001C 15-DEC-1994 14:02:07.65 SMTP send failed, sts=0C27804A, sts2=0000001C 15-DEC-1994 14:02:07.65 Recipient status=0C27804A for 15-DEC-1994 14:02:22.78 1 rcpts need retry, next try 15-DEC-1994 15:02:21 .79 15-DEC-1994 14:02:22.88 *** End of processing pass *** 2) MCP QUE SH 144 /FULL Entry: 140, Origin: [Local] Status: IN-PROGRESS, size: 133 bytes Created: 15-DEC-1994 14:01:04.39, expires 14-JAN-1995 14:01:04.39 Last modified 15-DEC-1994 14:02:03.64 SMTP entry #144, status: READY, size: 133 bytes, waiting for retry until 15-DE C-1994 15:02:21.79 Created: 15-DEC-1994 14:01:36.89, expires 14-JAN-1995 14:01:04.39 Last modified 15-DEC-1994 14:02:22.81 Recipient #1: , Route=192.84.225.6 Error count=1 Last error: %SYSTEM-F-EXQUOTA, exceeded quota 3) $ SHOW SYSTEM Pid Process Name State Pri I/O CPU Page flts Ph.Mem 0000AD0D MX SMTP COM 3 6086082 0 00:32:42.39 563 1041 0000970F MX SMTP#2 COM 3 6181297 0 00:07:42.92 558 1120 00009510 MX SMTP#3 COM 3 6486655 0 00:15:39.22 902 1215 0000B111 MX SMTP#4 COM 3 5881625 0 00:50:25.63 549 1025 0000A914 MX SMTP#5 COM 3 322096 0 00:06:48.39 726 1376 4) show process /id=ad0d /all 15-DEC-1994 14:55:02.38 User: MAILER Process ID: 0000AD0D Node: TIGRIS Process name: "MX SMTP" Terminal: User Identifier: [SYSTEM] Base priority: 3 Default file spec: Not available Devices allocated: BG8411: . . . BG9549: Process Quotas: Account name: NETSTUF CPU limit: Infinite Direct I/O limit: 100 Buffered I/O byte count quota: 528 Buffered I/O limit: 100 Timer queue entry quota: 50 Open file quota: 198 Paging file quota: 48469 Subprocess quota: 16 Default page fault cluster: 64 AST quota: 100 Enqueue quota: 295 Shared file limit: 0 Max detached processes: 0 Max active jobs: 0 Accounting information: Buffered I/O count: 6095914 Peak working set size: 1041 Direct I/O count: 2077 Peak virtual size: 2797 Page faults: 566 Mounted volumes: 0 Images activated: 0 Elapsed CPU time: 0 00:33:20.87 Connect time: 0 22:34:01.03 Process privileges: CMKRNL may change mode to kernel SYSNAM may insert in system logical name table DETACH may create detached processes TMPMBX may create temporary mailbox WORLD may affect other processes in the world EXQUOTA may exceed disk quota NETMBX may create network device PHY_IO may do physical i/o SYSPRV may access objects via system protection BYPASS may bypass all object access controls SYSLCK may lock system wide resources Process rights: BATCH INTERNET_ACCESS ARPANET_ACCESS System rights: SYS$NODE_TIGRIS There is 1 process in this job: MX SMTP (*) 5) SMTP processes (as whole MX) are running under MAILER account: Username: MAILER Owner: MX Mailer Account Account: NETSTUF UIC: [1076,76] ([NETSTUF,MAILER]) CLI: DCL Tables: DCLTABLES Default: DISK$ORACLE:[MAILER] LGICMD: NL: Flags: DisCtlY DefCLI Primary days: Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Secondary days: Sat Sun Primary 000000000011111111112222 Secondary 000000000011111111112222 Day Hours 012345678901234567890123 Day Hours 012345678901234567890123 Network: ----- No access ------ ----- No access ------ Batch: ##### Full access ###### ##### Full access ###### Local: ----- No access ------ ----- No access ------ Dialup: ----- No access ------ ----- No access ------ Remote: ----- No access ------ ----- No access ------ Expiration: (none) Pwdminimum: 6 Login Fails: 1 Pwdlifetime: (none) Pwdchange: 14-JAN-1993 20:36 Last Login: 15-JAN-1993 13:57 (interactive), 14-DEC-1994 16:20 (non-interactive) Maxjobs: 0 Fillm: 150 Bytlm: 100000 Maxacctjobs: 0 Shrfillm: 0 Pbytlm: 0 Maxdetach: 0 BIOlm: 30 JTquota: 1024 Prclm: 16 DIOlm: 30 WSdef: 1024 Prio: 4 ASTlm: 325 WSquo: 8192 Queprio: 100 TQElm: 20 WSextent: 64000 CPU: (none) Enqlm: 600 Pgflquo: 50000 Authorized Privileges: CMKRNL SYSNAM DETACH TMPMBX WORLD EXQUOTA NETMBX PHY_IO SYSPRV BYPASS SYSLCK Default Privileges: CMKRNL SYSNAM DETACH TMPMBX WORLD EXQUOTA NETMBX PHY_IO SYSPRV BYPASS SYSLCK Identifier Value Attributes INTERNET_ACCESS %X80010043 ARPANET_ACCESS %X80010042 Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Peter Erdosi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Erdosi ((( ))) Erdosi Peter Universitas of Debrecen ( O ( ) O ) Debreceni Universitas KLTE CIC (((\ /))) KLTE ISZK H4010 Debrecen, P.O.B.:58 V 4010 Debrecen, Pf:58 -/------------------------\- ( V ) -/-----------------------\- | E-mail: | ( ) | | | | ( ) | | | PERDOSI@tigris.klte.hu | """ """ | | | | | | -\------------------------/- Hungary -\-----------------------/- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 10:45:32 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:33:48 EST From: "Brian Tillman" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wku.edu Message-ID: <00988F98.31631E00.2@swdev.si.com> Subject: RE: Christmas wishes As long as we're wishing, I'd like a QUEUE REJECT option added to MCP that would act like CANCEL, but cause MX to also generate a rejection message to the sender containing a Postmaster-supplied text string. This mesage would be formatted exactly like the messages automatically sent because of unknown host or unknown user, but would contain the reason supplied on the QUEUE REJECT command. The command might look something like this: $ MCP> queue reject 125/text="The host you're addressing is down for repair" The rejection message should look something like this: Note: this message was generated automatically. An error was detected while processing the enclosed message. A list of the affected recipients follows. This list is in a special format that allows software like LISTSERV to automatically take action on incorrect addresses; you can safely ignore the numeric codes. --> Error description: Error-For: "sender"@some.dom.ain Error-Code: 3 Error-Text: The host you're addressing is down for repair Error-End: 1 error detected ------------------------------ Rejected message ------------------------------ ... etc. -- Brian tillman_brian@si.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 14:22:14 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:18:12 -0500 Message-ID: <94121515181218@umalp4.physics.lsa.umich.edu> From: gsears@umalp4.physics.lsa.umich.edu (gsears@umich.edu) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@wkuvx1.wku.edu Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 14:31:30 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: xu@galton.psycha.upenn.edu (Song Xu) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: MX Local Crash, Please help Date: 15 Dec 1994 14:51:00 GMT Message-ID: <3cpl4k$89m@netnews.upenn.edu> To: INFO-MULTINET@TGV.COM kevin@ins.infonet.net wrote: : xu@galton.psycha.upenn.edu (Song Xu) writes: : > I am running MX V4.1, UCX V3.1 on Open-VMS (AXP) 1.5-1H1. : > : > If I recall correctly, someone pointed out a few months ago that DEC MAILSHR : > file has bug which will crash my "MX Local" once a week. Do you know where : > I can get a good MAILSHR file? If you have a good one would you mind sending : > me a copy? Thank you very much in advance. : > (I called DEC and did not get much help.) : Same thing happens with Multinet's SMTP symbiont after it runs : out of pagefile quota. : Alas, I also called DEC on this one (again). But THIS time, the : gal called me back saying the UCX group had isolated a problem : with SMTP mail and a memory leak. She was sketchy on details, : sounded like new info (to DEC). She was going to check and see : if it is UCX specific or MAILSHR.EXE, which I specifically : named to her over and over again. : I'm supposed to get a call back on it. : Kevin Many thanks to Dan Wing, wing@tgv.com. As he suggested, I dug out MAILSHR.EXE and MAILSHRP.EXE from a distribution of OpenVMS AXP V1.5 (not the 1.5-1H1) and the CRASH has stopped. I have been observing the "MX Local" for a while. It has stopped "eating" memory. The memory leaking problem is gone! It is a shame that DEC can never figure it out (or admit it). Thanks again. Song ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:26:30 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: andrew@matai.vuw.ac.nz (Andrew Greer) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: mime support, x25 support Date: 15 Dec 1994 21:08:47 GMT Message-ID: <3cqb8v$pqn@st-james.comp.vuw.ac.nz> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU  : [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] : A couple of random questions : 1. any plans for MX to support mime for non-ascii messages ? It does to a degree if you do a SEND/FOREIGN it will convert the program to a mime format. But this can only be read at the other end by a system running MX or PMDF. : 2. I see that MX will do SMTP over X.25 - what do people use this for and : does it conform to RFC1090 ? I must admit that I hadn't heard of RFC1090 so I don't know. But we use it here to connect to a site to which we only have an X.25 link, and also allows the site we connect to, to send mail to site connected to the Internet. -- Andrew Greer, VMS and Unix Systems Manager -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information Technology Services | Domain: Andrew.Greer@vuw.ac.nz Victoria University | Phone: +64 4 495-5048 P.O. Box 600 | Fax: +64 4 471-5386 Wellington, New Zealand | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 21:16:42 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: RE: problems defining names in mail Date: 16 Dec 1994 03:11:21 GMT Message-ID: <3cr0gp$jpp@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <00988EA4.C449C768.1@adpce.lrk.ar.us>, Rick Stacks writes: =>I guess not knowing what you're doing IS a pain. Assuming that _SMTP% is =>really what he wants at the beginning of the addrress, then the way to solve =>his problem simply is: => $ DEF MARTIN _SMTP%"""socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk""" = =excuse me, but I believe that the correct way to do the above (at least its =the way that works on my system) is to use one of the following: = =$ ASSIGN "SMTP%""socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk""" MARTIN = =or = =$ DEFINE MARTIN "SMTP%""socrbrou@livjm.ac.uk""" The three are all equivalent, as you'd know if you understood at all how DCL parses quoted strings. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 04:38:49 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: "scots::scots::mrgate::a1::softels00001"@isvnet.enet.dec.com Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <9412161031.AA26504@us4rmc.pko.dec.com> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 05:31:48 EST X-MX-Warning: Warning -- Invalid "To" header. To: us4rmc::"mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu"@isvnet.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: mime support, x25 support From: NAME: Ian Miller - Softel Systems FUNC: TEL: To: NAME: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU <"MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU"@US4RMC@ISVNET@MRGATE@SCOTS@NBS> So if I send a file using SEND/FOR to MX%"someone@someplace" MX can encode it insuch a way that the MX at the other end can reconstruct the original file ? This sounds just the thing. One of the complaints I get about MX here is that users want to send Wordperfect documents (which they do using PSI MAIL and SEND/FOR) and they won't use MX as it mangles them. Which version of MX does this handling of SEND/FOR ? ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 06:44:08 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 13:43:15 EST From: "Mario Meyer, Phys.-Techn. Bundesanstalt" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: mmeyer@ChbRB.Berlin.PTB.De Message-ID: <00989073.718378A0.15@ChbRB.Berlin.PTB.De> Subject: MXmas wishlist Hello Hunter, As nights are longer now You may have time to think about my two wishes for the next MX release: 1 - I'd like to have more restrictive SMTP protocol validation. If HELO-domain doesnt match the partner it should be possible to abort the trasfer or to generate an audit message. To find violations I must analyze all SMTP-Server-DEBUG-logs now, when a sender tries to hide or modify his location. 2 - Preferences for Routing paths to allow failover using alternate routes. MCP-paths should overwrite nameservers MX-records (like in UCX). Alternate paths should be available not only for SMTP. I'd like to hear if someone else has an opinion (pro or contra) regarding this. A merry MXmas to all readers, Mario Meyer --,------------------------------------------------------.------------------ | Mario Meyer Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt | . , | ............. Institut Berlin Referat IB.TI | _QQ__ | : wide area : Abbestr. 2-12, D - 10587 Berlin | __( U, )__ | : networker : tel. (+49 30) 3481 442, fax. ... 490 | /// `---' \\\ | SMTP MMeyer@ChbRB.Berlin.PTB.De, BITNET MMeyer@PTBIB | /||\ /||\ --| X.400 S=Meyer; OU=IB-TI; O=PTB; P=PTB; A=d400; C=DE |------------------ `------------------------------------------------------' ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:34:55 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:33:16 CST From: Kenny Kon Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <00989058.E6AAE160.58@BIBLE.ACU.EDU> Subject: MX Digest again Are there any folks on this list who have successfullyset up the digest option on MX? I am having problems setting mine up. 1) I have the path set as define path DIGEST.SITE SITE/ROUTE=DIGEST 2) I also have the rewrite rule set as define rewrite_rule "<{u}@DIGEST.SITE>" "<{u}@DIGEST.SITE>" Is the rewrite rule set up correctly? I copied it out verbatim from the MX -Digest readme file. Thank you for any help. ----- Kenny Kon 303 Tampines St. 32, #12-58 Singapore 1852, Republic of Singapore kenny.kon@bible.acu.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:49:58 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:48:57 CST From: Kenny Kon Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <0098905B.17F55F00.118@BIBLE.ACU.EDU> Subject: MX_Digest working now I finally fot MX-Digest to work fine. The rewrite rule has "digest.site" instead of DIGEEST.SITE (in caps). The rest didn't work the first time. The rest I did a while ago finally did it - for some reason. ----- Kenny Kon 303 Tampines St. 32, #12-58 Singapore 1852, Republic of Singapore kenny.kon@bible.acu.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 12:33:33 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 11:24:03 MST From: Ask me about Star Stare '95 Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com Message-ID: <0098905F.FF261B40.8@borgil.cxo.dec.com> Subject: RE: MX Digest again |>Are there any folks on this list who have successfullyset up the digest |>option on MX? I am having problems setting mine up. Digest works fine for me. Are you getting a mlist-name.INPUT file generated? Have you turned on the MX_SITE_DEBUG to see what is happening? Also, did you remember to set up the MX_DIGEST_SUBMIT file to run at the appropriate time on your system? As you can tell, we need more info to help you... Mike ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 14:13:24 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: rgresset@hanms03.ha.osd.mil (Randall Gressett) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Subject: Choice Trading Company - Liquidation Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 15:13: 6 EST Message-ID: <9412162013.069FC8@hadri05.ha.osd.mil> Mr. Lionel M. Goldberg, I am Systems Administration for the HA/OA Network in Washington, D.C. I just got a copy of the list of the computer items that Choice Trading Company is trying to liquidate. A few of my co-workers and I would like to purchase some of the items you have listed, however, we do have some concerns. Could you please send me some additional information about your company. We would like to know what kind of security we have once we send a check to your company. I am sure this is totally legit, but for the saftey of the users on my network I would appreciate some other sort of insurance. If you have any questions please send me a message or call me at (703) 820-5580 X131. +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Randall Gressett | Internet: randall.gressett@ha.osd.mil HA/OA Network | Compuserve: 73261,1771 5109 Leesburg Pike, Suite 203 | Telephone: (703) 820-5580 Falls Church, VA USA | Fax: (703) 379-3961 ======================================= ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 20:42:59 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist Date: 17 Dec 1994 02:35:52 GMT Message-ID: <3ctiq8$ivl@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <00989073.718378A0.15@ChbRB.Berlin.PTB.De>, "Mario Meyer, Phys.-Techn. Bundesanstalt" writes: =Hello Hunter, = =As nights are longer now You may have time to think about my two wishes for the =next MX release: = =1 - I'd like to have more restrictive SMTP protocol validation. = If HELO-domain doesnt match the partner it should be possible = to abort the trasfer or to generate an audit message. = To find violations I must analyze all SMTP-Server-DEBUG-logs now, = when a sender tries to hide or modify his location. Or teach your users to pay attention to the Received: lines in the message headers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 1994 09:05:52 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 10:05:05 EST From: Steve Kneizys Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098911E.214F20E0.18768@acad.ursinus.edu> Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) said in article <3ctiq8$ivl@gap.cco.caltech.edu>: >In article <00989073.718378A0.15@ChbRB.Berlin.PTB.De>, "Mario Meyer, Phys.-Techn. Bundesanstalt" writes: >=Hello Hunter, >= >=As nights are longer now You may have time to think about my two wishes for the >=next MX release: >= >=1 - I'd like to have more restrictive SMTP protocol validation. >= If HELO-domain doesnt match the partner it should be possible >= to abort the trasfer or to generate an audit message. >= To find violations I must analyze all SMTP-Server-DEBUG-logs now, >= when a sender tries to hide or modify his location. > >Or teach your users to pay attention to the Received: lines in the message >headers. Carl, You should be congratulated on your recently toned-down posts to this newsgroup. However, you are still way out of line. I do not know why someone would repeatedly embarrass himself and his employer, but everytime you make one of these wisecracks or a personal attack instead of actually helping people you do just that. This time it seems you didn't carefully read the post to which you are making fun of. Once the message gets to the user, the damage is done. Also, do you really think that every user is going to comb *every message*, verify this info, then email a message to the sysadmin to alert them to the situation? Hardly. This is a task you automate. I understand that you have trouble understanding that some people find things offensive that you think are appropriate behavior, but they do. And faked email is one of those... I think an audit message is good. There are some institutons that 'hide' their users via firewalls & gateways that might pose a problem for a purely rejection scheme, but a log of anomolies would be useful to many. Steve... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Steve Kneizys stevo@acad.ursinus.edu | | Director P.O. Box 1000 | | Academic Computing Collegeville, PA 19426 | | Phone (610) 489 4111 x 2244 | | Ursinus College FAX (610) 489 0634 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 18:42:48 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist Date: 18 Dec 1994 00:34:57 GMT Message-ID: <3d003h$o7j@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <0098911E.214F20E0.18768@acad.ursinus.edu>, Steve Kneizys writes: =carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) said in article = <3ctiq8$ivl@gap.cco.caltech.edu>: = =>In article <00989073.718378A0.15@ChbRB.Berlin.PTB.De>, "Mario Meyer, Phys.-Techn. Bundesanstalt" writes: =>=Hello Hunter, =>= =>=As nights are longer now You may have time to think about my two wishes for the =>=next MX release: =>= =>=1 - I'd like to have more restrictive SMTP protocol validation. =>= If HELO-domain doesnt match the partner it should be possible =>= to abort the trasfer or to generate an audit message. =>= To find violations I must analyze all SMTP-Server-DEBUG-logs now, =>= when a sender tries to hide or modify his location. => =>Or teach your users to pay attention to the Received: lines in the message =>headers. = =Carl, = You should be congratulated on your recently toned-down posts to =this newsgroup. However, you are still way out of line. I do not know =why someone would repeatedly embarrass himself and his employer, but everytime =you make one of these wisecracks or a personal attack instead of actually =helping people you do just that. = = This time it seems you didn't carefully read the post to which you =are making fun of. Look, jackass, I wasn't making fun of anybody: The Received: headers in mail processed by MX will include the actual name of the host that connected to MX as determined by an NS lookup, or if the NS lookup fails, the IP address of the host in question. Now, how is pointing that out making fun of anybody? =Once the message gets to the user, the damage is =done. Oh? How so? The message contains the information to tell that it did not, apparently, come from the host it purported to. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 1994 23:12:37 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 00:11:52 EST From: Steve Kneizys Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00989194.6CE8C080.19610@acad.ursinus.edu> Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist Carl J Lydick said in article <3d003h$o7j@gap.cco.caltech.edu>: >In article <0098911E.214F20E0.18768@acad.ursinus.edu>, Steve Kneizys > writes: >=carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) said in article >= <3ctiq8$ivl@gap.cco.caltech.edu>: >= >=>In article <00989073.718378A0.15@ChbRB.Berlin.PTB.De>, "Mario Meyer, Phys.-Techn. Bundesanstalt" writes: >=>=Hello Hunter, >=>= >=>=As nights are longer now You may have time to think about my two wishes for the >=>=next MX release: >=>= >=>=1 - I'd like to have more restrictive SMTP protocol validation. >=>= If HELO-domain doesnt match the partner it should be possible >=>= to abort the trasfer or to generate an audit message. >=>= To find violations I must analyze all SMTP-Server-DEBUG-logs now, >=>= when a sender tries to hide or modify his location. >=> >=>Or teach your users to pay attention to the Received: lines in the message >=>headers. >= >=Carl, >= You should be congratulated on your recently toned-down posts to >=this newsgroup. However, you are still way out of line. I do not know >=why someone would repeatedly embarrass himself and his employer, but everytime >=you make one of these wisecracks or a personal attack instead of actually >=helping people you do just that. >= >= This time it seems you didn't carefully read the post to which you >=are making fun of. > >Look, jackass, I wasn't making fun of anybody: This is a good place to start. You are calling me a name, which is not very polite. This is some of the inappropriate behaviour that others have emailed you/the list about before, and is exactly what I was talking about. >The Received: headers in mail >processed by MX will include the actual name of the host that connected to MX >as determined by an NS lookup, or if the NS lookup fails, the IP address of the >host in question. Now, how is pointing that out making fun of anybody? That is not what you pointed out. It is nice that you have expounded on your original one-liner. Originally you made a wisecrack, clear and simple. That is making fun of the post. What you did in the material quoted above was a nice explanation of the point you thought you were making. There is a huge difference. But it still does not address the issues raised by the original poster. > >=Once the message gets to the user, the damage is >=done. > >Oh? How so? The message contains the information to tell that it did not, >apparently, come from the host it purported to. Carl, if you go up to the text of the original poster you will see the words *abort the transfer*. If the person has already gotten the email, then the goal of keeping the email out of their mailbox has not happened. The damage is already done. After carefully re-reading, do you now see the point the original poster and I were making? I maintain my original statement that you did not carefully read the original post. You also deleted part of my reply to your message, which explains my point. To help explain this, here is part of that message: part of what I, Steve Kneizys, wrote in message <0098911E.214F20E0.18768@acad.ursinus.edu>: # Also, do you really think that every user is going to comb *every # message*, verify this info, then email a message to the sysadmin to # alert them to the situation? Hardly. This is a task you automate. Let me explain: If you carefully re-read the original post, there was a request for the sysadmin to see, in a log, the questionable messages. You replied that the users should determine this for themselves. Many sysadmins want to know about this, and having the user email the message back to the sysadmin is a waste of the user's time. There will be, most likely, a low compliance rate. The easiest, most productive way to ensure the sysadmin will get all such occurances is an automated log. Your one-liner 'answer' did nothing to address the original poster's stated goals. Quoting me again: # # I understand that you have trouble understanding that some people # find things offensive that you think are appropriate behavior, but they # do. And faked email is one of those... Please note that name calling is one of those things that many people do not think is appropriate for this forum, that you have been asked previously by people using this forum not to do this, and that I find it very inappropriate as well. Also, repeatedly making fun of people and their questions is also considered inappropriate. Steve... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Steve Kneizys stevo@acad.ursinus.edu | | Director P.O. Box 1000 | | Academic Computing Collegeville, PA 19426 | | Phone (610) 489 4111 x 2244 | | Ursinus College FAX (610) 489 0634 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 07:30:27 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 07:29:44 CST From: Kenny Kon Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <009891D1.9826ED20.15@BIBLE.ACU.EDU> Subject: Problem running MX_DELIVER_DIGESTS.COM My Digest is working as far as creating an .INPUT file. However when I run MX_DELIVER_DIGESTS.COM, this is what happens. Any suggestions? Thanks. >Renaming .INPUT files to *.PROCESS.... >%RENAME-I-RENAMED, MX_ROOT:[SITE]STONE-CAMPBELL-DIGEST.INPUT;1 renamed to MX_ROOT:[SITE]STONE-CAMPBELL-DIGEST.PROCESS;3 >Processing the .PROCESS files now.... >Digest name to process is STONE-CAMPBELL.... >%SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=00000000, PC=0007A3F0, PSL=03C00004 > > Improperly handled condition, image exit forced. > > Signal arguments Stack contents > > Number = 00000005 201C0000 > Name = 0000000C 00000000 > 00000000 201C0000 > 00000000 00000007 > 0007A3F0 7FED4774 > 03C00004 000017FD > 0008F0F0 > 0008FA90 > 00000200 > 00000001 > > Register dump > > R0 = 00000000 R1 = 0008FA90 R2 = 00000000 R3 = 00000000 > R4 = 00000000 R5 = 00000810 R6 = 7FED4760 R7 = 00000760 > R8 = 7FFECA48 R9 = 7FFECC50 R10= 7FFED7D4 R11= 7FFE2BDC > AP = 7FED46F8 FP = 7FED46B8 SP = 7FED4734 PC = 0007A3F0 > PSL= 03C00004 > >No OUTPUT file found!!! ----- Kenny Kon 303 Tampines St. 32, #12-58 Singapore 1852, Republic of Singapore kenny.kon@bible.acu.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 08:07:51 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist Date: 18 Dec 1994 10:22:45 GMT Message-ID: <3d12hl$cqi@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <00989194.6CE8C080.19610@acad.ursinus.edu>, Steve Kneizys writes: =>= You should be congratulated on your recently toned-down posts to =>=this newsgroup. However, you are still way out of line. I do not know =>=why someone would repeatedly embarrass himself and his employer, but everytime =>=you make one of these wisecracks or a personal attack instead of actually =>=helping people you do just that. =>= =>= This time it seems you didn't carefully read the post to which you =>=are making fun of. => =>Look, jackass, I wasn't making fun of anybody: = =This is a good place to start. You are calling me a name, which is not =very polite. Ah, but your wholly unsubstantiated claim that I was making fun of somebody was tyhe epitome of politeness? Get your head out of your ass, shit-for-brains. Your moronic attack was no more polite than was my honest assessment of your incredible degree of stupidity. =This is some of the inappropriate behaviour that others =have emailed you/the list about before, and is exactly what I was =talking about. Gee. If I call a jackass a jackass, that's inappropriate, but if the jackass in question posts pure bullshit, that's quite acceptable. Fuck off, jackass. =>The Received: headers in mail =>processed by MX will include the actual name of the host that connected to MX =>as determined by an NS lookup, or if the NS lookup fails, the IP address of the =>host in question. Now, how is pointing that out making fun of anybody? = =That is not what you pointed out. It is nice that you have expounded on =your original one-liner. Originally you made a wisecrack, clear and simple. No, moron, originally I pointed out a possible alternative to enabling SMTP debugging. Don't blame me because you're too damned stupid to have seen that originally. It's not my fault you're a moron. =Carl, if you go up to the text of the original poster you will see the =words *abort the transfer*. Y'now, you're even more stupid than I expected was possible. He said, and I quote, abort the trasfer or to generate an audit message. Now, since you're obviously incapable or parsing that phrase for your self, I'll point out that it means he was willing either to have the message rejected OR for him to be notified. Now, just what was it about that that you're too damned stupid to understand? =If the person has already gotten the email, =then the goal of keeping the email out of their mailbox has not happened. And that's a goal that YOU invented. It was no part of the original post, shit-for-brains. How much work did you have to put in to achieve your current levl of stupidity? =The damage is already done. After carefully re-reading, do you now see =the point the original poster and I were making? I'vee reread the post. You'v invented something the original poster never said. That sort of delusionary mindset is generally considered psychotic. I suggest you seek professional help. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 10:00:59 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 10:00:52 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009891E6.B508FE96.81@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Problem running MX_DELIVER_DIGESTS.COM Kenny Kon writes: > >My Digest is working as far as creating an .INPUT file. However when I run >MX_DELIVER_DIGESTS.COM, this is what happens. Any suggestions? Thanks. > >>Renaming .INPUT files to *.PROCESS.... >>%RENAME-I-RENAMED, MX_ROOT:[SITE]STONE-CAMPBELL-DIGEST.INPUT;1 renamed to MX_ROOT:[SITE]STONE-CAMPBELL-DIGEST.PROCESS;3 >>Processing the .PROCESS files now.... >>Digest name to process is STONE-CAMPBELL.... >>%SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=00000000, PC=0007A3F0, PSL=03C00004 >> That's a bug in one of the digest programs---I've seen it occasionally here, too. I hope to look into the problem after the New Year.... Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 11:43:43 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 17:43:11 +0100 From: "Paul Lambert (MIS Dept)." Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00989227.4ACDC980.1@mis.tees.ac.uk> Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist Would it be possible to have Carl J Lydick removed from this mailing list please. While often providing useful information, I find the manner in which it is presented to be wholly inappropriate for a Computer Professional. Paul. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (RFC-822: P.Lambert@mis.tees.ac.uk) Tel: +44 (0)1642 342130 (X.400: I=P;S=LAMBERT;O=TEESSIDE;OU1=MIS;P=UK.AC;C=GB) Fax: +44 (0)1642 342067 University of Teesside, MIS Department, Middlesbrough, Cleveland, TS1 3BA (UK) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 12:25:57 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 13:24:50 EST From: Steve Kneizys Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00989203.3339C180.20045@acad.ursinus.edu> Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) wrote in article <3d12hl$cqi@gap.cco.caltech.edu>: >In article <00989194.6CE8C080.19610@acad.ursinus.edu>, Steve Kneizys writes: >=>= You should be congratulated on your recently toned-down posts to >=>=this newsgroup. However, you are still way out of line. I do not know >=>=why someone would repeatedly embarrass himself and his employer, but everytime >=>=you make one of these wisecracks or a personal attack instead of actually >=>=helping people you do just that. >=>= >=>= This time it seems you didn't carefully read the post to which you >=>=are making fun of. >=> >=>Look, jackass, I wasn't making fun of anybody: >= >=This is a good place to start. You are calling me a name, which is not >=very polite. > >Ah, but your wholly unsubstantiated claim that I was making fun of somebody was >tyhe epitome of politeness? Get your head out of your ass, shit-for-brains. >Your moronic attack was no more polite than was my honest assessment of your >incredible degree of stupidity. > >=This is some of the inappropriate behaviour that others >=have emailed you/the list about before, and is exactly what I was >=talking about. > >Gee. If I call a jackass a jackass, that's inappropriate, but if the jackass >in question posts pure bullshit, that's quite acceptable. Fuck off, jackass. I think people will be able to judge for themselves the relative politeness of my posts versus yours. > >=>The Received: headers in mail >=>processed by MX will include the actual name of the host that connected to MX >=>as determined by an NS lookup, or if the NS lookup fails, the IP address of the >=>host in question. Now, how is pointing that out making fun of anybody? >= >=That is not what you pointed out. It is nice that you have expounded on >=your original one-liner. Originally you made a wisecrack, clear and simple. > >No, moron, originally I pointed out a possible alternative to enabling SMTP >debugging. Don't blame me because you're too damned stupid to have seen that >originally. It's not my fault you're a moron. > >=Carl, if you go up to the text of the original poster you will see the >=words *abort the transfer*. > >Y'now, you're even more stupid than I expected was possible. He said, and I >quote, > abort the trasfer or to generate an audit message. >Now, since you're obviously incapable or parsing that phrase for your self, >I'll point out that it means he was willing either to have the message rejected >OR for him to be notified. Now, just what was it about that that you're too >damned stupid to understand? Okay, lets parse the phrase. I'll point out that it means either 1) we was interested in being able to direct MX to, at his option, either reject the message or for him to be notified or 2) as you said, "either to have the message rejected OR for him to be notified" but either choice is equally acceptable. English is not a totally unambiguous language, and sometimes the possibility of more than one interpretation may escape you. Your strict interpretation that either possibility is equally acceptable cannot be satisfied by your original reply "Or teach your users to pay attention to the Received: lines in the message headers." Let's parse your phrase. You would educate the users to pay attention to the Received: line. Nowhere in your phrase do you mention emailing the sysadmin to alert them or manually making entries in a log. As I stated before, even if you had sugested that possibility there would be low compliance. And of course, as you said, the other way of satisfying their original request would be "to have the message rejected", but if the user is readiing the message then that cannot happen. Your post does not satisfactorily address the original poster's concerns. > >=If the person has already gotten the email, >=then the goal of keeping the email out of their mailbox has not happened. > >And that's a goal that YOU invented. It was no part of the original post, >shit-for-brains. How much work did you have to put in to achieve your current >levl of stupidity? This is not a goal I invented, this is in the original post and, as you stated, it is one of the acceptable options. As you stated, one possibility is "to have the message rejected". You said that, really you did. Something about a pot and kettle comes to mind... > >I'vee reread the post. You'v invented something the original poster never said. >That sort of delusionary mindset is generally considered psychotic. I suggest >you seek professional help. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL These words need no commentary. Steve... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Steve Kneizys stevo@acad.ursinus.edu | | Director P.O. Box 1000 | | Academic Computing Collegeville, PA 19426 | | Phone (610) 489 4111 x 2244 | | Ursinus College FAX (610) 489 0634 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 13:43:19 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: gvrod@isuvax.iastate.edu (Rod Eldridge) Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist Date: 18 Dec 1994 19:36:12 GMT Message-ID: <3d22vc$219@news.iastate.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <00989227.4ACDC980.1@mis.tees.ac.uk>, "Paul Lambert (MIS Dept)." writes: >Would it be possible to have Carl J Lydick removed from this mailing list >please. While often providing useful information, I find the manner in which it >is presented to be wholly inappropriate for a Computer Professional. This was tried unsuccessfully last year with the info-vax mailing list. I think banning someone from a discussion because you don't approve of his posting style is wrong. Now, if Carl was posting food recipes or something else that obviously don't belong in the mailing list and he refused to stop, then that is another thing entirely. But, that's not the case here. You said it yourself, Carl provides useful information. Simply put, if you don't like Carl's style, ingnore his postings. -- Rod Eldridge | Iowa State University | gvrod@isuvax.iastate.edu 515-294-7498 rod@iastate.edu http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rod/ Spock: "It would be illogical to assume that all conditions remain stable." Star Trek episode #59, "The Enterprise Incident", Stardate: 5031.3 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 05:41:04 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 11:10:01 -0800 From: "Ian Miller - Softel Systems" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <01230191214991/78968@SCOTS> To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Subject: software wanted [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] Can anybody (preferably in the UK) help me to obtain any of the following by return post. I would supply Compact Tape I (TK50,TZ30), Compact Tape II (TK70) or Compact Tape III (TF85) by post and the return postage paid. MX 4.1 CMU TEK TCP/IP including SLIP support MGFTP (only if CMU TEK TCP/IP does not include FTP) a BIND server (again only if CMU TEK TCP/IP does not include). All of the is to run on a VAX running VMS 5.5-2 What I trying to do is get the software together to use a dialup IP service and as usual am having to do it cheaply. Does anybody have any experience of CMU TEK TCP/IP or TCPware (just in case I do manage to get some money) and dialup IP ? Ian Miller Softel Systems. email internet : softels00001@a1.partners.new.mts.dec.com PSIMAIL : 234273400398::IAN Telephone 01734 842151 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 06:56:54 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:43:36 EST From: "Mario Meyer, Phys.-Techn. Bundesanstalt" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: mmeyer@ChbRB.Berlin.PTB.De Message-ID: <009892CE.FD4FBF80.3@ChbRB.Berlin.PTB.De> Subject: MXmas wishlist - some remarks I asked Hunter to add a special feature to a later MX release: I'd like to have more restrictive SMTP protocol validation. If HELO-domain doesnt match the partner it should be possible to abort the transfer or to generate an audit message. To find violations I must analyze all SMTP-Server-DEBUG-logs now, when a sender tries to hide or modify his location. I should have known, that Carl J Lydick must answer in his well known manner again to such a short question. I declare: I never wanted to have filled this list with that kind of verbal attacks. Maybe my English is not not good enough to explain my problem that anyone understands how I meant it. But that should be reason for asking me instead of blindly shooting. Now about the background of my question: You can speak to the SMTP-socket from any PC that You can configure with any free Internet-address that is routet back in Your LAN via TELNET. Thus You can send SMTP-Mails with any originator address. What will the receiver see ? I give an example. The Header in VMSmail is 8< ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19-DEC-1994 08:39:45.05 From: MX%"Nobody@anywhere.neverland" Subj: demonstration To: MX%"mmeyer@Berlin.PTB.De" CC: 9 records Attributes: None >8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The body is 8< ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from anywhere.neverland (shiva) by merlin.Berlin.PTB.De (MX V4.1 VAX) with SMTP; Mon, 19 Dec 1994 08:39:39 EST Date: yesterday From: Nobody@anywhere.neverland To: mmeyer@Berlin.PTB.De Subject: demonstration This may be seen by the receiver. >8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl, You are right: MX shows, that the originator node is not "anywhere.neverland" but "shiva". But does the normal user recognise this ? No, he won't ! He will answer and this can cause very big trouble. Even if MX generates a big headline "Originator not verified !" this will be ignored by more than 70 % of our users, because they push as usual on the Reply-Button. MLF accepts subscriptions sent via Telnet. Everybody could subscribe another Person (for example carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) in hundreds of mailing lists, or subscribe another list in a list... nothing seems impossible. I know: this is a common SMTP problem. I only want to be alerted to avoid escalation. My assumption is, that this would require only little modifications for MX. A switch for SMTP server "cancelifnotverified" may be appropriate in the future and added to MX easily too. We have VMS. Let us keep that level of reliability for our users ! --,------------------------------------------------------.------------------ | Mario Meyer Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt | . , | ............. Institut Berlin Referat IB.TI | _QQ__ | : wide area : Abbestr. 2-12, D - 10587 Berlin | __( U, )__ | : networker : tel. (+49 30) 3481 442, fax. ... 490 | /// `---' \\\ | SMTP MMeyer@ChbRB.Berlin.PTB.De, BITNET MMeyer@PTBIB | /||\ /||\ --| X.400 S=Meyer; OU=IB-TI; O=PTB; P=PTB; A=d400; C=DE |------------------ `------------------------------------------------------' ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 08:07:54 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist - some remarks Date: 19 Dec 1994 13:49:04 GMT Message-ID: <3d430g$qro@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <009892CE.FD4FBF80.3@ChbRB.Berlin.PTB.De>, "Mario Meyer, Phys.-Techn. Bundesanstalt" writes: =I asked Hunter to add a special feature to a later MX release: = = I'd like to have more restrictive SMTP protocol validation. = If HELO-domain doesnt match the partner it should be possible = to abort the transfer or to generate an audit message. = To find violations I must analyze all SMTP-Server-DEBUG-logs now, = when a sender tries to hide or modify his location. = =I should have known, that Carl J Lydick must answer in his well known manner =again to such a short question. Yes, I answered your question in my usual manner: I posted an alternative to using the debug logs. Some moron decided that the suggestion was intended as an insult. Now you demonstrate that you didn't bother reading the original response, and instead based your moronic opinion purely on hearsay. I SHOULD have insulted you first time around. =I declare: I never wanted to have filled this =list with that kind of verbal attacks. Maybe my English is not not good enough =to explain my problem that anyone understands how I meant it. But that should be =reason for asking me instead of blindly shooting. = =Now about the background of my question: =You can speak to the SMTP-socket from any PC that You can configure with any =free Internet-address that is routet back in Your LAN via TELNET. =Thus You can send SMTP-Mails with any originator address. =What will the receiver see ? I give an example. The Header in VMSmail is =8< ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- =Date: 19-DEC-1994 08:39:45.05 =From: MX%"Nobody@anywhere.neverland" =Subj: demonstration =To: MX%"mmeyer@Berlin.PTB.De" =CC: =9 records =Attributes: None =>8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- =The body is =8< ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- =Return-Path: =Received: from anywhere.neverland (shiva) by merlin.Berlin.PTB.De (MX V4.1 VAX) = with SMTP; Mon, 19 Dec 1994 08:39:39 EST =Date: yesterday =From: Nobody@anywhere.neverland =To: mmeyer@Berlin.PTB.De =Subject: demonstration =This may be seen by the receiver. =>8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- = =Carl, You are right: MX shows, that the originator node is not ="anywhere.neverland" but "shiva". But does the normal user recognise this ? =No, he won't ! And that's why I pointed out that you'd have to teach your users to look at such thingws. I realize that English apparently isn't your native language, but I'd've though that you'd understand that the verb "to teach" implies that the person you're trying to teach hasn't already learned what you're trying to teach him. I'm sorry that I overestimated your intelligence. I'll try not to make that mistake again. =He will answer and this can cause very big trouble. =Even if MX generates a big headline "Originator not verified !" this =will be ignored by more than 70 % of our users, because they push =as usual on the Reply-Button. = =MLF accepts subscriptions sent via Telnet. Everybody could subscribe another =Person (for example carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) in hundreds of mailing lists, =or subscribe another list in a list... nothing seems impossible. = =I know: this is a common SMTP problem. I only want to be alerted to avoid =escalation. And you know so little about SMTP that you think implementing your suggestion would accomplish that? I've got news for you: Your suggestion has absolutely NOTHING to do with that sort of thing. Even if it DID, there would be nothing to stop someone from using an intermediate machine to do exactly the same thing. =My assumption is, that this would require only little modifications =for MX. It would require a complete rewrite of the SMTP protocol. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 08:53:17 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU X-MX-Warning: Warning -- Invalid "From" header. From: Joseph V. Spinetti Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 8:49:13 EST > > Would it be possible to have Carl J Lydick removed from this mailing list > please. While often providing useful information, I find the manner in which it > is presented to be wholly inappropriate for a Computer Professional. > > Paul. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > (RFC-822: P.Lambert@mis.tees.ac.uk) Tel: +44 (0)1642 342130 > (X.400: I=P;S=LAMBERT;O=TEESSIDE;OU1=MIS;P=UK.AC;C=GB) Fax: +44 (0)1642 342067 > University of Teesside, MIS Department, Middlesbrough, Cleveland, TS1 3BA (UK) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > I second the motion! -- =============================================================================== = = = Joseph V. Spinetti Senior Engineer GEC-Marconi Electronic Systems Corp. = = Mail Stop 11B51 = = 164 Totowa Road E-Mail: spinetti@systems.gec.com = = P. O. Box 0975 Phone : (201) 633-4488 = = Wayne, NJ 07474-0975 Fax : (201) 633-6199 = = = =============================================================================== ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 10:58:53 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 10:58:47 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009892B7.F689568C.19@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist "Paul Lambert (MIS Dept)." writes: > >Would it be possible to have Carl J Lydick removed from this mailing list >please. While often providing useful information, I find the manner in which it >is presented to be wholly inappropriate for a Computer Professional. > Carl's posts come from the NEWS side of the list, so I have no control over them, without modifying MX to reject them. I've asked Carl time and time again to chill out---consider this another request please, Carl. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 11:23:51 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 10:16:30 MST From: Ask me about Star Stare '95 Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com Message-ID: <009892B2.0EC2C860.9@borgil.cxo.dec.com> Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist |>I think banning someone from a discussion because you don't approve of |>his posting style is wrong. Now, if Carl was posting food recipes or I have to agree. Removing Carl from the list is not the appropriate thing to do, just ignoring his rantings is. Carl does give a lot of info, you just have to wade through some crap to get to it. |>Simply put, if you don't like Carl's style, ingnore his postings. Maybe a wishlist item for MX would be facility for kill files ;^). Mike ____________________________________________________________________________ / Mike Frazier | I have come to the conclusion that one useless \ | Oracle Corporation | man may be considered a disgrace, two useless | | Rdb Support Team | men are called a law firm, and three or more | | Colorado Springs, Colorado| comprise a Congress. -- John Adams in "1776" | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| \ Email Address: m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com / ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 11:42:04 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 17:41:55 GMT From: "Andy Harper, KCL Systems Manager" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wku.edu CC: udaa055@bay.cc.kcl.ac.uk Message-ID: <009892F0.48153CA4.92@bay.cc.kcl.ac.uk> Subject: MX queu problems MX 4.1 on VMS 5.5-2... I'm pretty sure I have a corrupted queue here. After doing a QUE COMPRESS (chucking off all MX users first with MX_SHUTDOWN and stopping all MX processes), all the nice messages came out about creating new queue, copying messages, renumbering etc. but, after restarting everything the queue was EMPTY! However, all the messages in the [.%] directory were still there - now inaccessible! As well as this, the queue display commands seem to be completely out of whack. QUEUE SHOW tells me the queue is empty whereas STATUS tells me it's processing several entries. I plan to recreate the queue from scratch but, is there a way to add all those disconnected entries back into the queue? There's about 300 of them so I'ld hate to lose them all. Anyone with a nice neat utility to deal with this would be much appreciated.... Perhaps MX 4.2 could tidy up the problems caused by the queue out of sync? Thanks Andy Harper Kings College London ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:06:49 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: mikeb@radonc.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: Problem running MX_DELIVER_DIGESTS.COM Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 18:51:10 GMT Message-ID: <3d4klp$22l@mark.ucdavis.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU "Hunter Goatley, WKU" writes: >Kenny Kon writes: >> >>My Digest is working as far as creating an .INPUT file. However when I run >>MX_DELIVER_DIGESTS.COM, this is what happens. Any suggestions? Thanks. >> >>>Renaming .INPUT files to *.PROCESS.... >>>%RENAME-I-RENAMED, MX_ROOT:[SITE]STONE-CAMPBELL-DIGEST.INPUT;1 renamed to MX_ROOT:[SITE]STONE-CAMPBELL-DIGEST.PROCESS;3 >>>Processing the .PROCESS files now.... >>>Digest name to process is STONE-CAMPBELL.... >>>%SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=00000000, PC=0007A3F0, PSL=03C00004 >>> >That's a bug in one of the digest programs---I've seen it occasionally >here, too. I hope to look into the problem after the New Year.... > It's in MX_MAKE_DIGEST.EXE -- I've seen it twice in the past 10 days, and as soon as I get some time I hope to dig into it and see if I can at least identify where it's happening. I've altered my MX_DELIVER_DIGESTS.COM to keep the .INPUT file so I can recreate this at will (I hope). I'll keep you posted as to my progress (if any!). I'm not sure my C is good enough to actually fix it, but I ought to at least close in on the bug. Mike =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Michael Bowers Internet: mikeb@radonc.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu University of California, Davis ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:27:52 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:26:45 EST From: Bob Christenson Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009892CC.A2830960.1@fcstc1.frco.com> Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist "Ask me about Star Stare '95" writes: > >|>I think banning someone from a discussion because you don't approve of >|>his posting style is wrong. Now, if Carl was posting food recipes or > > I have to agree. Removing Carl from the list is not the appropriate > thing to do, just ignoring his rantings is. Carl does give a lot of > info, you just have to wade through some crap to get to it. > Ditto. >|>Simply put, if you don't like Carl's style, ingnore his postings. > > Maybe a wishlist item for MX would be facility for kill files ;^). > > Mike I would like to see kill files added as a feature. (although not for the purposes discussed here) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Christenson - Sr. Systems Analyst | Inet Address: rachri1@fcseng.frco.com Fisher Controls Int., Inc. | Voice Phone : (515) 754-3854 R.A. Engel Technical Center | FAX Phone : (515) 754-2831 South 12th Avenue | Marshalltown IA 50158 | "Why ask why?" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:31:00 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 08:46:31 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Stacks Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009892A5.7CBA6808.1@adpce.lrk.ar.us> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Rod Eldridge writes: > >In article <00989227.4ACDC980.1@mis.tees.ac.uk>, > "Paul Lambert (MIS Dept)." writes: >>Would it be possible to have Carl J Lydick removed from this mailing list >>please. While often providing useful information, I find the manner in which it >>is presented to be wholly inappropriate for a Computer Professional. > >This was tried unsuccessfully last year with the info-vax mailing list. >I think banning someone from a discussion because you don't approve of >his posting style is wrong. Now, if Carl was posting food recipes or >something else that obviously don't belong in the mailing list and he >refused to stop, then that is another thing entirely. But, that's not >the case here. You said it yourself, Carl provides useful information. > >Simply put, if you don't like Carl's style, ingnore his postings. Really? I find it *VERY* hard to ignore postings which contain the following quotes from Carl J Lydick during this thread. These ARE inappropriate and do not belong here OR in a thread discussing food receipes. Personally, I feel Mr. Lydick has left himself and his organization open to libel/slander lawsuit by the affected individual. Following quotes taken from messages of Mr. Lydick: »Look, jackass, I wasn't making fun of anybody: The Received: headers in mail » »Ah, but your wholly unsubstantiated claim that I was making fun of somebody was »tyhe epitome of politeness? Get your head out of your ass, shit-for-brains. »Your moronic attack was no more polite than was my honest assessment of your »incredible degree of stupidity. » »Gee. If I call a jackass a jackass, that's inappropriate, but if the jackass »in question posts pure bullshit, that's quite acceptable. Fuck off, jackass. » »No, moron, originally I pointed out a possible alternative to enabling SMTP »debugging. Don't blame me because you're too damned stupid to have seen that »originally. It's not my fault you're a moron. » »I'vee reread the post. You'v invented something the original poster never said. »That sort of delusionary mindset is generally considered psychotic. I suggest »you seek professional help. » To All: *Please* no matter how stupid a person's question or rebuttal don't carry on like the above in this or any other list. Thanks! +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Rick Stacks, Sr. Programmer Analyst | They that give up essential liberty | | Ark Dept Pollution Control & Ecology | to obtain a little temporary safety | | 8001 National Dr. / POB 8913 | deserve neither liberty nor safety | | Little Rock, AR 72219 USA | -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 | | email: stacks@adpce.lrk.ar.us | | |--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------| ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:46:51 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 14:45:33 EST From: Steve Kneizys Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009892D7.A4B26B80.21391@acad.ursinus.edu> Subject: RE: MXmas wishlist - some remarks "Mario Meyer, Phys.-Techn. Bundesanstalt" writes in message <009892CE.FD4FBF80.3@ChbRB.Berlin.PTB.De> [some stuff deleted] >I know: this is a common SMTP problem. I only want to be alerted to >avoid escalation. My assumption is, that this would require only >little modifications for MX. A switch for SMTP server >"cancelifnotverified" may be appropriate in the future and added to >MX easily too. > We have VMS. Let us keep that level of reliability for our users ! There are a couple Mail-to-Usenet gateways out there, and I know that the one at utexas.edu does some verification. There is also verification for FTP using domain name serving, to log the exact location of the initial transfer. Unreliable SMTP bothers me too... For subscriptions, one easy thing to do would be to email the person who is making the subscription request with a verification code. The actual acct owner would be required to send that verification code back in. I am running an older version of MX, and don't know if this is in there yet? Back to the original post: For email, some individual alluded to having the users manually check the Received: lines in the header. Of course we all know that in practicality this makes little sense. However, perhaps MX could do this, as you suggested, and put in both an X-Comments: line and alert via a system log. Just a few friendly, nurturing and respectful comments, Steve... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Steve Kneizys stevo@acad.ursinus.edu | | Director P.O. Box 1000 | | Academic Computing Collegeville, PA 19426 | | Phone (610) 489 4111 x 2244 | | Ursinus College FAX (610) 489 0634 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:55:24 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: somar@ha.osd.mil (Samer Omar) To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Court Ordered Liquidation - Computer Memory CC: somar@hadbms04.ha.osd.mil, sdixon@hadbms04.ha.osd.mil, rgresset@hadbms04.ha.osd.mil Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 14:53:57 EST Message-ID: <9412191953.3928C8@hapc11.ha.osd.mil> To whom it may concern: I would like to get some additional information about the computer memory, hard drives, and CPU's that you have listed for liquidation. I have many co-workers looking to place orders. As Systems Administrator for the Health Affairs Office Automation Network I have been elected to follow up on what the exact procedure is to order items. I would also like to know what kind of security a person ordering has against fraud. The way the list and directions read to me is to send a list of the items wanted with a check for the amount and wait for the equipment to arrive 2-3 weeks later. I would like to believe that everything could run this smooth, but for the protection of my co-workers and users on my network I would appreciate some additional information that may eleviate any anxiety we are having. Thank You for your support ***************************************** Samer Omar System Administrator HA/OA Network DRI Support 820-5580 ****************************************** ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 14:14:59 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: ewilson@ha.osd.mil (Ed Wilson) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Court Ordered Liquidation - Computer Memory CC: somar@hanfs01.ha.osd.mil, sdixon@hanfs01.ha.osd.mil, rgresset@hanfs01.ha.osd.mil Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 14:53:57 EST Message-ID: <9412191953.3928C8@hapc11.ha.osd.mil> To whom it may concern: I would like to get some additional information about the computer memory, hard drives, and CPU's that you have listed for liquidation. I have many co-workers looking to place orders. As Systems Administrator for the Health Affairs Office Automation Network I have been elected to follow up on what the exact procedure is to order items. I would also like to know what kind of security a person ordering has against fraud. The way the list and directions read to me is to send a list of the items wanted with a check for the amount and wait for the equipment to arrive 2-3 weeks later. I would like to believe that everything could run this smooth, but for the protection of my co-workers and users on my network I would appreciate some additional information that may eleviate any anxiety we are having. Thank You for your support ***************************************** Samer Omar System Administrator HA/OA Network DRI Support 820-5580 ****************************************** ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 17:17:01 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 15:10:43 EST From: Scot Bishop-Walker - DEC PC Integration Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009892DB.28AAE040.18@vmpyr.wro.dec.com> Subject: RE: Problem running MX_DELIVER_DIGESTS.COM Kenny Kon writes: > >My Digest is working as far as creating an .INPUT file. However when I run >MX_DELIVER_DIGESTS.COM, this is what happens. Any suggestions? Thanks. > >>Renaming .INPUT files to *.PROCESS.... >>%RENAME-I-RENAMED, MX_ROOT:[SITE]STONE-CAMPBELL-DIGEST.INPUT;1 renamed to >>MX_ROOT:[SITE]STONE-CAMPBELL-DIGEST.PROCESS;3 >>Processing the .PROCESS files now.... >>Digest name to process is STONE-CAMPBELL.... >>%SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=00000000, >> PC=0007A3F0, PSL=03C00004 Kenny ( Hunter) - I've got the same problem, only in a different place. Creating the .OUTPUT file, I get the ACCVIO, then the digest goes ahead and sends anyway. Of the three digest I process, only the first one gets the error. Hunter, if you're interested in the error text, let me know, I'll send it to you. Also, The BIG problem I'm having with this is that the SUBMIT_DIGESTS.COM won't resubmit itself. the job simply dies, and the digest never get sent. Any ideas? - Scot ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 07:49:13 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist Date: 20 Dec 1994 09:57:01 GMT Message-ID: <3d69pd$pd3@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <009892B7.F689568C.19@ALPHA.WKU.EDU>, "Hunter Goatley, WKU" writes: =Carl's posts come from the NEWS side of the list, so I have no control =over them, without modifying MX to reject them. I've asked Carl time =and time again to chill out---consider this another request please, =Carl. I'll be glad to, if you can convince the morons to whom I respond to stop posting dangerously false misinformation, and, as was the case this time around, outright lies and unwarranted personal attacks. I will NOT, however, treat someone who demonstrates his utter incompetence as if he were competent and deserving of any respect at all. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 08:29:54 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 08:28:32 CST From: "Robert H. McClanahan, Manager TIS" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098936C.238094C0.3@tis.aecc.com> Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist > Would it be possible to have Carl J Lydick removed from this mailing list > please. While often providing useful information, I find the manner in which it > is presented to be wholly inappropriate for a Computer Professional. > > Paul. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > (RFC-822: P.Lambert@mis.tees.ac.uk) Tel: +44 (0)1642 342130 > (X.400: I=P;S=LAMBERT;O=TEESSIDE;OU1=MIS;P=UK.AC;C=GB) Fax: +44 (0)1642 342067 > University of Teesside, MIS Department, Middlesbrough, Cleveland, TS1 3BA (UK) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I, too, am sick and tired of listening to Carl Lydick blast anyone who dares ask a question or do some brainstorming. I, too, don't care how much he adds to the list ... He should be removed. +--+ Robert H. McClanahan, Manager, Technical Information Systems <[]>< Arkansas Electric Coop Corp | Email: rmcclanahan@tis.aecc.com Post Office Box 194208 | Phone: (501) 570-2403 Little Rock, AR 72219-4208 USA | All Opinions are mine, not the Coop's ... ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 10:10:20 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 17:08:13 +0100 From: "Rok Vidmar, RCU Lj." Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009893B4.BD12723C.6@uni-lj.si> Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist > > Would it be possible to have Carl J Lydick removed from this mailing list > > please. While often providing useful information, I find the manner in which it > > is presented to be wholly inappropriate for a Computer Professional. > > > > Paul. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > (RFC-822: P.Lambert@mis.tees.ac.uk) Tel: +44 (0)1642 342130 > > (X.400: I=P;S=LAMBERT;O=TEESSIDE;OU1=MIS;P=UK.AC;C=GB) Fax: +44 (0)1642 342067 > > University of Teesside, MIS Department, Middlesbrough, Cleveland, TS1 3BA (UK) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I, too, am sick and tired of listening to Carl Lydick blast anyone > who dares ask a question or do some brainstorming. I, too, > don't care how much he adds to the list ... He should be > removed. > > > +--+ > Robert H. McClanahan, Manager, Technical Information Systems <[]>< > Arkansas Electric Coop Corp | Email: rmcclanahan@tis.aecc.com > Post Office Box 194208 | Phone: (501) 570-2403 > Little Rock, AR 72219-4208 USA | All Opinions are mine, not the Coop's ... Dear Santa, can you instead move all Managers, Senior Engineers, Computer Professionals, and other VIPs to a polite, adequate, decent, and sterile (senile? sp.) list?! Regards, Rok Vidmar inet: rok.vidmar@uni-lj.si UCC, University of Ljubljana x.400: S=vidmar;G=rok;O=uni-lj;P=ac;A=mail;C=si Kardeljeva pl. 17 phone: +386 61 168 6439 61000 Ljubljana fax: +386 61 168 6358 Slovenia ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 13:07:57 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: dpm@access4.digex.net (David P. Murphy) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Seven Steps to a Better Newsgroup Date: 20 Dec 1994 13:22:41 -0500 Message-ID: To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes: >In article <009892B7.F689568C.19@ALPHA.WKU.EDU>, "Hunter Goatley, WKU" writes: >=Carl's posts come from the NEWS side of the list, so I have no control >=over them, without modifying MX to reject them. I've asked Carl time >=and time again to chill out---consider this another request please, >=Carl. >I'll be glad to, if you can convince the morons to whom I respond to stop >posting dangerously false misinformation, and, as was the case this time >around, outright lies and unwarranted personal attacks. I will NOT, however, >treat someone who demonstrates his utter incompetence as if he were competent >and deserving of any respect at all. well, i've been working on a reply off-and-on for about half an hour now, and i can't figure out how to reach carl inside his BlackAndWhiteWorld (tm). certainly better men (and women!) have tried before me and failed. therefore, let me offer these fun'n'easy Seven Steps To A Better Newsgroup: 1. it is perfectly fine to NOT treat someone as if he were competent --- this can be accomplished by ignoring him completely. 2. unless you are a trained psychiatrist, refrain from diagnosing behaviorial problems in others, since you are not competent to do so. 3. if you know that "bimbo" does not necessarily mean "promiscuous", then you know that "ignorant" does not necessarily mean "stupid" and that "wrong" doesn't mean "intentionally deceiving my employer". 4. remind yourself that you are not the designated net.crusader, and that not all alleged mistakes must be corrected by *you*. remember that you have in fact been wrong occasionally, and notice that all of the VMS newsgroups are chock-full of able and willing participants. 5. slap yourself upside the head whenever a derogatory comment slips into a follow-up --- you are acquainted with neither the individual nor his situation, you have no reason to insert such remarks into a technical newsgroup, and (best of all) there is a group chartered specifically for such antics, wherein such antics might even be appreciated. 6. decide whether (a) you are perfect or (b) there will be times when your judgement will lapse as to what is or is not proper to write when following up. if the latter, respect the opinions of others which you will undoubtedly receive --- both posted and emailed --- and learn that being RIGHT does not implicitly allow you to digress publicly upon the failings and imperfections of those who in your extremely offended opinion do not measure up. if the former, start your own USENET heirarchy so that your acolytes can worship you in peace. 7. do not accuse others of "unwarranted personal attacks" when you are obviously incapable of recognizing that you are doing so yourself. ok dpm -- David P. Murphy When every one is dead (systems programmer at large) the Great Game is finished dpm@access.digex.net not before. a personal account COGITO, ERGO DISCLAIMUM --- Hurree Babu, "Kim" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 14:09:51 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 14:09:57 EST From: "Stanley J. McCaslin" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098939B.D59CB0D8.3@psccs1.peru.edu> Subject: Re: MXmas wishlist At the risk of getting flammed (not for the first time) and knowing that Carl needs no defenders, I need to comment. Carl's posts serve two useful purposes: 1) They often contain solid, insightful information. 2) They make people think about their questions before posting, which should make the questions easier to answer on the first pass. I don't post to this list very often, but I read it religiously. The reasons I do not post are that my questions are usually answered by simply reading the list, and that others beat me to the punch with answers. Keep up the good work. Stanley J. McCaslin Inet: mccaslin@psccs1.peru.edu Assistant Professor, Computer Science Phone:402/872-2208 Peru State College, Peru, NE 68421 Home: 402/872-7595 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 14:23:59 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 15:21:10 EST From: "Jonathan E. Hardis" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: hardis@garnet.nist.gov Message-ID: <009893A5.C8A0FBA0.31474@garnet.nist.gov> Subject: RE: Seven Steps to a Better Newsgroup > let me offer these fun'n'easy Seven Steps To A Better Newsgroup: 8. There's nothing wrong with being frank. However, when you gotta say what needs to be said, there are not one, but two ways of doing it: replies to the list (posting to the newsgroup) *and* private Email. The truely polite way of dealing with nasty messages is to answer them in private, if at all. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 22:00:48 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: stevo@acad.ursinus.edu (Steve Kneizys) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Recent Events... Date: 20 Dec 1994 21:47:01 -0600 Message-ID: <009893E4.03D46F20.24403@acad.ursinus.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <009892B7.F689568C.19@ALPHA.WKU.EDU>, "Hunter Goatley, WKU" writes: >Carl's posts come from the NEWS side of the list, so I have no control >over them, without modifying MX to reject them. I've asked Carl time >and time again to chill out---consider this another request please, >Carl. Thanks Hunter for you call for reason. However, Carl's reply (that I will not repost) is dissappointing. It does not seem that this person will respond to reason. Right now I am contemplating various options. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has similarly been attacked, especially if they have copies of the text. Free Speech ends when someone decides to yell "FIRE! FIRE!" in a perfectly fine movie theatre, as the intent is to incite and provoke. I believe this concept may be applied here, as might libel. My Websters dictionary defines libel as 1) any false and malicious written or printed statement, or any sign, picture, or effigy, tending to expose a person to public ridicule, hatred, or contempt or to injure his reputation in any way, 2) the act of publishing such a thing. I know that libel falls outside the acceptable use policy of both my mid-level Internet service provider as well as the NSFNET. Steve... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Steve Kneizys stevo@acad.ursinus.edu | | Director P.O. Box 1000 | | Academic Computing Collegeville, PA 19426 | | Phone (610) 489 4111 x 2244 | | Ursinus College FAX (610) 489 0634 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 22:57:51 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: Recent Events... Date: 21 Dec 1994 04:34:39 GMT Message-ID: <3d8b8v$777@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <009893E4.03D46F20.24403@acad.ursinus.edu>, stevo@acad.ursinus.edu (Steve Kneizys) writes: =In article <009892B7.F689568C.19@ALPHA.WKU.EDU>, "Hunter Goatley, WKU" writes: =>Carl's posts come from the NEWS side of the list, so I have no control =>over them, without modifying MX to reject them. I've asked Carl time =>and time again to chill out---consider this another request please, =>Carl. = =Thanks Hunter for you call for reason. However, Carl's reply (that I =will not repost) is dissappointing. It does not seem that this person will =respond to reason. I'll gladly listen to reason. What you advocate is treating unreason by folks who won't take the time to check their claims before posting them as if it were reason. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 00:30:13 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 23:29:30 -0700 From: "Ray Harwood -- Data Basix: (602)721-1988" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: rharwood@Data.Basix.COM Message-ID: <009893EA.012FEE9C.18403@Data.Basix.COM> Subject: OK, so I gotta at my tuppence, too... Carl-with-the-bad-attitude responds to Hunter-who-calls-for-reason: > I'll gladly listen to reason. What you advocate is treating unreason by folks > who won't take the time to check their claims before posting them as if it were > reason. No, Carl, you miss the point entirely. What YOU advocate is "chastise in public" and subject the "rest of us morons" to your public ridicule of otherwise well-intentioned people. If you had any panache at all, you'd make your derogatory remarks in private (via EMail) or preferably keep them to yourself. YOU are the only person who wants to hear your abusive bahavior. ... which is not to say that ALL your comments are abusive. If one is willing to sift through the rabbit pellets, it is possible to find the occasional worthwhile tidbit in your postings. It's just that for most of us, it's not worth the effort. I hope Santa brings you a life for Christmas... As for the rest of us, Joys of the Season... may we all be blessed with Peace. Ray ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 07:40:38 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: anders_b@ekc.kth.se Subject: RE: Outgoing messages die from unprivileged accounts? Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 17:25:24 EST Message-ID: <00988D6D.D071F2A0@ekc.kth.se> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <00988BA8.882C7040.4@fred.bridgew.edu>, smcneilly@fred.bridgew.edu writes: >Katny, check the diskquota for the SYSTEM account on SYS$SYSDEVICE. We >had a similar problem here a couple of weeks ago and that was the >culprit. Privileged accounts had the EXQUOTA privilege and so were OK. I have a similar experience with MX 3.3. The SYSTEM account had exceeded diskquota on the disk where MX is located (in my case *NOT* SYS$SYSDEVICE). In my case SYSTEM is the owner of the MX-files and it seemed to me (no expert) that there was a problem creating files in the queue directories. - Anders Bjorklund ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 07:44:06 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 08:42:47 EST From: munson@nsrl31.nsrl.rochester.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00989437.4BE30120.32364@nsrl31.nsrl.rochester.edu> Subject: Re: Recent Events... Carl, I don't want to tell anyone what to do or say, or define free speech for everyone. It is obvious to me you know your stuff having read numerous postings from you. I understand your position as stated. My only question would be not directed to you alone, but also to every one else who sees a newbie question on the net., thinks it is stupid, and then wastes his time and energy flaming them. I would think that your employers could use that time more productively writing grant proposals, or spectacular software, with some great documentation. As for myself, I don't particularly care if I get flamed or not as long as I get the answer to my question. I don't care to waste my time flaming others, but I've been flamed to a crisp a number of times and still survived. The only thing that matters is what your employer thinks of you, not what anyone else thinks. I surely would take the flame with a grain or two of salt, and of course no one on the net really knows or understands anyone elses situation. Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Munson N.S.R.L. Univ. of Rochester Rochester, NY munson@nsrl.rochester.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 11:14:53 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 10:05:29 MST From: Ask me about Star Stare '95 Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com Message-ID: <00989442.D9A15100.3@borgil.cxo.dec.com> Subject: Re: Recent Events... Carl, |>I'll gladly listen to reason. What you advocate is treating unreason by folks |>who won't take the time to check their claims before posting them as if it were |>reason. Sometimes what seems totally unreasonable and unresearched to you, may be a completely reasonable and logical theory for the other person due to their use of it and how it has proved itself out to that point. Usually, they are posting to the list because their theory of operation now seems flawed (and it usually is, like my misunderstanding of how SMTP worked a month ago). This is where a person such as yourself, should show them how their theory is wrong, and instruct them what the correct theory is. Little one liners that are insulting or even just brief statements that don't fully explain the reasoning lead to flame-wars like we've had here. Also, as an instructor, some level of latitude for bogus, or ignorant questions has to be accepted. You seem to take certain statements about MX as attacks when they weren't aimed that way. Calm down a little (sure its hard sometimes) but don't take things so far out of context, and when things are stated completely innacurately, then take a moment to explain it how you believe/know it works. Mike ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 15:03:22 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 15:02:15 EST From: Bob Christenson Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098946C.4E93AF20.4@fcstc1.frco.com> Subject: RE: Seven Steps to a Better Newsgroup "Jonathan E. Hardis" writes: > >> let me offer these fun'n'easy Seven Steps To A Better Newsgroup: > > 8. There's nothing wrong with being frank. However, when you gotta > say what needs to be said, there are not one, but two ways of > doing it: replies to the list (posting to the newsgroup) *and* > private Email. The truely polite way of dealing with nasty > messages is to answer them in private, if at all. 9. Be as complete as you can about describing the problem. Include as much data as possible including but not limited to appropriate log files, any debugging information included with the application and a description of the environment. 10. Before posting, please do the following 3 things: 1) RTM - (Read The Manual) 2) RTM 3) RTFM - where F=yourfavoriteFword ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Christenson - Sr. Systems Analyst | Inet Address: rachri1@fcseng.frco.com Fisher Controls Int., Inc. | Voice Phone : (515) 754-3854 R.A. Engel Technical Center | FAX Phone : (515) 754-2831 South 12th Avenue | Marshalltown IA 50158 | "Why ask why?" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 18:35:59 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 17:30:08 MST From: Ask me about Star Stare '95 Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com Message-ID: <00989480.F7446880.3@borgil.cxo.dec.com> Subject: RE: Seven Steps to a Better Newsgroup |>>> let me offer these fun'n'easy Seven Steps To A Better Newsgroup: |>> |>> 8. There's nothing wrong with being frank. However, when you gotta |>> say what needs to be said, there are not one, but two ways of |>> doing it: replies to the list (posting to the newsgroup) *and* |>> private Email. The truely polite way of dealing with nasty |>> messages is to answer them in private, if at all. |> |> 9. Be as complete as you can about describing the problem. Include |> as much data as possible including but not limited to |> appropriate log files, any debugging information included with |> the application and a description of the environment. |> |> 10. Before posting, please do the following 3 things: |> |> 1) RTM - (Read The Manual) |> 2) RTM Geez... I wish some of the customers that call me would read this ;^) |> 3) RTFM - where F=yourfavoriteFword Read The Friendly Manual ??? ;^) Mike ____________________________________________________________________________ / Mike Frazier | I have come to the conclusion that one useless \ | Oracle Corporation | man may be considered a disgrace, two useless | | Rdb Support Team | men are called a law firm, and three or more | | Colorado Springs, Colorado| comprise a Congress. -- John Adams in "1776" | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| \ Email Address: m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com / ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 05:16:55 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 12:19:25 +0100 From: Juan Altmayer Pizzorno Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: juan@vms.gmd.de Message-ID: <0098951E.B9B92D6A.1@vms.gmd.de> Subject: RE: MXmas wishlist - some remarks "Mario Meyer, Phys.-Techn. Bundesanstalt" writes: >I'd like to have more restrictive SMTP protocol validation. >If HELO-domain doesnt match the partner it should be possible >to abort the transfer or to generate an audit message. >To find violations I must analyze all SMTP-Server-DEBUG-logs now, >when a sender tries to hide or modify his location. > >[...] > >I know: this is a common SMTP problem. I only want to be alerted to avoid >escalation. My assumption is, that this would require only little >modifications for MX. A switch for SMTP server "cancelifnotverified" may be >appropriate in the future and added to MX easily too. (I've been too busy for MX-List lately, so I may have missed a previous response; Hopefully I'm not repeating a previous response) Indeed it would take just a trivial modification to MX's SMTP Server to make it reply "501 HELO domain doesn't verify", since it does look up the HELO domain already. Unfortunately, that change won't help you much, because only SMTP connections opened *directly* to your server would be verified. The faker would simply have to open a SMTP connection to some other server, anywhere in the world, and in 99.999+% of the cases that server will be happy to forward the message to your server (and that would succeed, since it would come from an "official" server.) Looking at Received: lines might help detecting the source (if a message with a local users' From: comes with several Received: lines, I'd doubt it really comes from the local user), but Received: lines can be faked as well (you can insert more Received: lines to make tracing harder). >We have VMS. Let us keep that level of reliability for our users ! :) I see your point, but: it's not the product's (MX's) fault, but the technology's (SMTP). It looks like what you're looking for is PEM (Privacy Enhanced Mail, RFC 1421.) .. Juan ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 08:33:42 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 08:32:17 EST From: Bob Christenson Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009894FE.FEF20E60.1@fcstc1.frco.com> Subject: RE: Seven Steps to a Better Newsgroup "Ask me about Star Stare '95" writes: [SNIP] > >|> 3) RTFM - where F=yourfavoriteFword > > Read The Friendly Manual ??? ;^) Could be. Could be Foolish - Could be Freakin' - Could be FUBAR .. Whatever. Please just read it at least three times before asking questions. I find that learning and solving problems using the resources that come with most applications (i.e. - the *Manual*) leads to a better and more lasting understanding of both the problem and solution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Christenson - Sr. Systems Analyst | Inet Address: rachri1@fcseng.frco.com Fisher Controls Int., Inc. | Voice Phone : (515) 754-3854 R.A. Engel Technical Center | FAX Phone : (515) 754-2831 South 12th Avenue | Marshalltown IA 50158 | "Why ask why?" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 08:58:07 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: MXmas wishlist - some remarks Message-ID: <3dc1g9$p7u@gap.cco.caltech.edu> From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Date: 22 Dec 1994 14:12:25 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <0098951E.B9B92D6A.1@vms.gmd.de>, Juan Altmayer Pizzorno writes: ="Mario Meyer, Phys.-Techn. Bundesanstalt" writes: = =>I'd like to have more restrictive SMTP protocol validation. =>If HELO-domain doesnt match the partner it should be possible =>to abort the transfer or to generate an audit message. =>To find violations I must analyze all SMTP-Server-DEBUG-logs now, =>when a sender tries to hide or modify his location. => =>[...] => =>I know: this is a common SMTP problem. I only want to be alerted to avoid =>escalation. My assumption is, that this would require only little =>modifications for MX. A switch for SMTP server "cancelifnotverified" may be =>appropriate in the future and added to MX easily too. = =(I've been too busy for MX-List lately, so I may have missed a previous =response; Hopefully I'm not repeating a previous response) = =Indeed it would take just a trivial modification to MX's SMTP Server to make =it reply "501 HELO domain doesn't verify", since it does look up the HELO =domain already. Unfortunately, that change won't help you much, because =only SMTP connections opened *directly* to your server would be verified. =The faker would simply have to open a SMTP connection to some other server, =anywhere in the world, and in 99.999+% of the cases that server will be happy =to forward the message to your server (and that would succeed, since it would =come from an "official" server.) Looking at Received: lines might help =detecting the source (if a message with a local users' From: comes with =several Received: lines, I'd doubt it really comes from the local user), but =Received: lines can be faked as well (you can insert more Received: lines =to make tracing harder). It's much worse than that: The forger would merely have to connect directly to his machine, use the correct name of his system in the HELO line, and use the bogus address in the "MAIL FROM" line. The system will accept that without complaint, and will use thee "MAIL FROM" information for the return address. This behavior is an integral part of the way mail systems which honor MX records in the domain server databases work. Once again: The software change he wants has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating the problem he wants to deal with. It you don't believe me, try it yourself: Telnet to port 25 of a system with an SMTP serever, and enter the following: HELO {your host name} MAIL FROM: nobody@nowhere.nodomain RCPT TO: {your e-mail address} DATA . QUIT If you want to be a bit more clever, include some Received: lines in the body of the message as you send it, to make it look as if your system received the mail from elsewhere and was simply forwarding it along. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 15:32:02 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: denholm@conmat.phys.soton.ac.uk Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: smtp security (was: MXmas wishlist) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 21:09:17 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Hi, on subject of smtp security... I dont really know much about it, but I haven't seen either of these mentioned in foregoing discussion, though (understandably, i hope..?) I haven't studied previous posts very carefully... - lack of mention is quite possibly because they are irrelevent, in which case I apologise for wasting your time... 1) My sys$manager:tcp_activity.log file (cmu tcp/ip) is full of lines like 13-DEC-1994 09:23:06.54 SYN received for unknown port 113 from <152.78.128.78> 152.78.128.78 is our mail relay, so I think that this is some sort of security check (I'm sure I was told this by comp.services, but I cant find that right now). I also have entries from other machines. rfc1010 lists port 113 as authentication server. rfc931 seems to go into some detail, but it's all way over my head... [ mentions ftp rather than smtp - is this one for MGFTP ? ] I guess it's not really up to mx to run a server for port 113. Would mx smtp_server making a call to port 113 of calling machine actually give any real security, or is it entirely a nominal thing..? Perhaps it is no more secure than the HELO check already in place ? (ie can it still be circumvented by making your forged connection via another server that doesn't check. If so, at least making this check would reduce the number of servers in the world that dont make this check..? ) 2) What is ESMTP protocol ? Is it more secure..? Is it in widespread use ? I cant find it in an rfc right now, but our mail relay (relay.soton.ac.uk) tries to use it... $ telnet 152.78.128.78/port=25 Connected to 152.78.128.78. 220-beech.soton.ac.uk Sendmail (8.6.9/relay-8.9) ready at Thu, 22 Dec 1994 20:36:37 GMT 220 ESMTP spoken here and incoming connections look like - drat, no messages currently in log, and test message still hasn't come back... anyway, if memory serves, it goes client> OLEH relay.soton.ac.uk server> identify yourself with HELO client> HELO relay.soton.ac.uk etc ie opening gambit is for esmtp, which mx rejects, so it then switches to smtp. .. and season's greetings to all... dd -- David Denholm 'official' : D.R.Denholm@southampton.ac.uk Physics dept. preferred : denholm@conmat.phys.soton.ac.uk Southampton University Tel : (01703) 592104 [work] (01489) 576733 [home] uk SO17 1BJ Fax : (01703) 593910 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 18:20:07 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: wing@tgv.com ("Dan Wing") Subject: Re: smtp security (was: MXmas wishlist) Date: 23 Dec 1994 00:09:10 GMT Message-ID: <3dd4f6$dvg@news.arc.nasa.gov> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article , denholm@conmat.phys.soton.ac.uk writes: # on subject of smtp security... I dont really know much about it, #but I haven't seen either of these mentioned in foregoing discussion, #though (understandably, i hope..?) I haven't studied previous posts very #carefully... - lack of mention is quite possibly because they #are irrelevent, in which case I apologise for wasting your time... # #1) # My sys$manager:tcp_activity.log file (cmu tcp/ip) is full of lines like # #13-DEC-1994 09:23:06.54 SYN received for unknown port 113 from <152.78.128.78> # #152.78.128.78 is our mail relay, so I think that this is some #sort of security check (I'm sure I was told this by comp.services, #but I cant find that right now). I also have entries from other #machines. Port 113 is used by IDENT, which is best described in RFC1413. #rfc1010 lists port 113 as authentication server. #rfc931 seems to go into some detail, but it's all way over my head... #[ mentions ftp rather than smtp - is this one for MGFTP ? ] # #I guess it's not really up to mx to run a server for port 113. #Would mx smtp_server making a call to port 113 of calling machine #actually give any real security, or is it entirely a nominal thing..? IDENT cannot provide any real security at all. *IF* you trust the remote machine, you can get some reassurance that the remote end is the user you think it is, but it is sortof useless for mail, as usually root (or SYSTEM) is sending all the mail, not the individual user. However, if you did an IDENT query back to the source system, and found a non-priv'd user was actually making the connection to your SMTP port, you could more-or-less assume it was mail being faked.... (However, conside there is nothing wrong with usernames other than "root" or "SYSTEM" or whatever else some other operating system uses for its superuser, or, for that matter, SYSMGR, or SYSTEM_WING or similar usernames). #Perhaps it is no more secure than the HELO check already in place ? #(ie can it still be circumvented by making your forged connection # via another server that doesn't check. Yup. #If so, at least making this # check would reduce the number of servers in the world that dont # make this check..? #) Well, for the same reason that doing an inverse IP address-to-hostname lookup isn't recommended for SMTP (it slows things down, often unnecessarily), creating a full TCP connection to the sending system would slow things down even more, add overhead, etc. And you still don't know if you can really trust the information you've received. #2) # What is ESMTP protocol ? Is it more secure..? Is it in widespread #use ? I cant find it in an rfc right now, but our mail relay #(relay.soton.ac.uk) tries to use it... # #$ telnet 152.78.128.78/port=25 #Connected to 152.78.128.78. #220-beech.soton.ac.uk Sendmail (8.6.9/relay-8.9) ready at Thu, 22 Dec 1994 #20:36:37 GMT #220 ESMTP spoken here Extended SMTP; many SMTP Servers that support MIME advertise that they do ESMTP (at least, I believe that's right -- I haven't done much with MIME myself). #and incoming connections look like #- drat, no messages currently in log, and test message #still hasn't come back... anyway, if memory serves, it goes #client> OLEH relay.soton.ac.uk #server> identify yourself with HELO #client> HELO relay.soton.ac.uk #etc A MIME-capable SMTP client would use EHLO instead of HELO when it talks to a remote SMTP Server. If the remote SMTP Server also does MIME, then it makes an appropriate response. #ie opening gambit is for esmtp, which mx rejects, so it then switches #to smtp. FYI, MultiNet includes an IDENT Server on the V3.3 CD-ROM in the [CONTRIBUTED-SOFTWARE.APPLICATIONS] directory. It is not supported by TGV, but its there if you'd like to play with it, or install it on your VMS system. -dan -Dan Wing, wing@tgv.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 19:18:30 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <9412230120.AA06982@getafix.oasis.icl.co.uk> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 94 01:20:12 GMT From: j.l.jones.bra0505@oasis.icl.co.uk Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: smtp security (was: MXmas wishlist) To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu > 1) > My sys$manager:tcp_activity.log file (cmu tcp/ip) is full of lines like > 13-DEC-1994 09:23:06.54 SYN received for unknown port 113 from > <152.78.128.78 > > 152.78.128.78 is our mail relay, so I think that this is some > sort of security check (I'm sure I was told this by comp.services, > but I cant find that right now). I also have entries from other > machines. > > rfc1010 lists port 113 as authentication server. > rfc931 seems to go into some detail, but it's all way over my head... > [ mentions ftp rather than smtp - is this one for MGFTP ? ] > Port 113 is used to provide the user ID of the person making the connection. If you have the authsrv daemon running, when a remote host receives a connection, it can make a reverse connection back to that host, and by providing the local port number and remote port number as parameters, it is given the username of the process making the original call. This is used for IRC servers alot. Some mail systems use it, and put that result (if there is one) in the Received line, such as a Received from daemon@myhost.com instead of just the address. This will only be effective if someone spoofs mail to that machine, though, and then only if their machine is running the authsrv daemon. As has been pointed out, a spoofer can just telnet to the 99.999% (was that the figure used :) ) of machines that don't support this to relay it on. > I guess it's not really up to mx to run a server for port 113. No. That's up to the IP software. We had a AUTHSRV process on the VMS host I used to help run, running under CMU/TEK-IP. However, it broke when I upgraded to the latest version (6.5-1 from 6.3 I think -- it was about 15 months ago). I coudln't find the source, and no-one on the cmutek list could help me at the time. > Would mx smtp_server making a call to port 113 of calling machine > actually give any real security, or is it entirely a nominal thing..? As mentioned, it would only help if EVERY system used it, and also if EVERY system ran the AUTHSRV daemon, and that EVERY system-admin was trustworthy (remember, alot of dialup slip/ppp sites exist - not always with unique-to-owner registered names - these people are effectively 'root' / 'SYSTEM' on machines on the internet, and aren't necessarily trustworthy!) Happy Christmas to everyone, jamie (jamie@hicom.lut.ac.uk) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Jones, OP/Unix Systems Admin, Jamie.Jones.bra0505@oasis.icl.co.uk CFM (ICL UK), Feltham, Middlesex. J.L.Jones.bra0505@oasis.icl.co.uk Telephone: 0181 479 0103 X7229 2604 J.L.Jones@bra0505.icl.icl.gold-400.gb ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 02:27:23 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 10:27:38 EST From: enikunen@domlang.fi Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <009895D8.461FF69C.23421@domlang.fi> Subject: Eudora and MX I have an Alpha with OpenVms 1.5 and MX 3.x. I know that there is a version 4.1 of MX. Does it have a POP server ? Or do I have to get it elsewhere? Thanks for help in advance! Erja Nikunen Research Centre for Domestic Languages ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 07:01:51 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: Seven Steps to a Better Newsgroup Message-ID: <3dh4j7$1jf@gap.cco.caltech.edu> From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Date: 24 Dec 1994 12:35:51 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <009894FE.FEF20E60.1@fcstc1.frco.com>, Bob Christenson writes: ="Ask me about Star Stare '95" writes: =[SNIP] => =>|> 3) RTFM - where F=yourfavoriteFword => => Read The Friendly Manual ??? ;^) = =Could be. Could be Foolish - Could be Freakin' - Could be FUBAR .. Whatever. =Please just read it at least three times before asking questions. More to the point, read it at least once (or at least use SEARCH to look for relevant keywords in the .TXT version) before answering a question. For example, if you're going to answer a question about counterfeiting mail, read the sections that talk about the envelope, the headers, and the body of a message. Then look at the RFCs they reference. That way, you can avoid implying that the nodename you give in the HELO command determines the return address, for example. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 24 Dec 1994 07:01:55 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: Recent Events... Message-ID: <3dh4oh$1jf@gap.cco.caltech.edu> From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Date: 24 Dec 1994 12:38:41 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <00989437.4BE30120.32364@nsrl31.nsrl.rochester.edu>, munson@nsrl31.nsrl.rochester.edu writes: =Carl, = =I don't want to tell anyone what to do or say, or define free speech for =everyone. It is obvious to me you know your stuff having read numerous =postings from you. I understand your position as stated. My only question =would be not directed to you alone, but also to every one else who sees a =newbie question on the net., thinks it is stupid, and then wastes his time =and energy flaming them. In that case, you're missing the entire point: I tend not to flame newbie questions. Yes, I may be a bit sarcastic in my replies to them, but I seldom flame them unless, for example, we've obviously got someone who's managing MX but hasn't even glanced at the manuals. I tend to flame wrong answers to questions. Obviously, if someone's asking a question, he's admitting that he doesn't know the answer. When somebody posts total bullshit purporting to be an answer to a question, that's another matter entirely. Is it really asking too much to demand that someone who posts an answer has some clue as to what he's talking about? That he have RTFM? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 02:16:52 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: galumbeck@twc.dragon.com (Alan Galumbeck) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: Recent Events... Date: 25 Dec 94 03:11:56 EST Message-ID: <1994Dec25.031156@landmark.net> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Admittedly, I haven't been around here long enough to have been blasted by Carl (or by anyone else, for that matter), but come on folks! You're using up far more bandwidth sharing your complaints about him than Carl has even begun to use. How about sticking to the subject of the newsgroup? Thanks. ======================================================================== galumbeck@landmark.net Alan D. Galumbeck 404/801-2114 The Weather Channel Landmark Video Networks The Travel Channel ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Opinions expressed here may not reflect those of Landmark Video Networks ======================================================================== ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 13:53:34 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 13:53:29 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: CCDARG@ZIPPY.DCT.AC.UK Message-ID: <00989850.872020F7.27@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Mailshr patch for VMS 6.1 ccdarg@zippy.dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig) writes: > >However... I seem to recall seeing details of a patch for AXP >6.1 posted some time ago but a quick check in the MX contrib >directory failed to find it. Did I imagine it as I shall likely >need it soon? You can find the new patch on ftp.wku.edu in [.VMS.FILESERV] as PATCH_MAILSHR_ON_VMS_N_AXP_61.ZIP. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 13:56:07 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 13:56:03 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00989850.E2D47C0E.11@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: MX MLF blowing up with divide by zero fault edgecombe@cloud.ccrs.emr.ca writes: > >For some reason, we got a n.HDR_INFO file of zero size (possibly due to >the disk filling up, possibly due to other reasons). > >However, as this message was destined for the MFL exploder, when it read >the message it bombed with an integer divide by zero trap, killing the >detached job and effectively preventing the mailing lists from working. > %@$$! I thought I caught all of those. >This is in version "MX V4.1 VAX"; which seems to be the most recent >released. > >Could you put this on the list of things to be corrected, please, Hunter? > Will do. Thanks for pointing out the problem, John. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 14:03:00 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 14:02:53 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00989851.D7B1F021.38@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: Re: Court Ordered Liquidation - Computer Memory - CPU's & Hdsk Drives del@giant.IntraNet.com writes: > >In an attempt to keep this on topic: can MX be configured to only accept >postings from _subscribed_ list members? Yes. >If so, would it be uncharitable of >me to recommend that MX-List be so configured? > Yes. 8-) Not everyone posts from the same address with which they're subscribed, etc. >This type of posting (the parent of the topic, not mine ;-) will only >increase, I fear. Some defense would be appropriate. > I agree, it's getting pretty tiresome already.... Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 14:15:36 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 14:15:28 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00989853.99BECD19.19@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: MXmas wishlist "Mario Meyer, Phys.-Techn. Bundesanstalt" writes: > >1 - I'd like to have more restrictive SMTP protocol validation. > If HELO-domain doesnt match the partner it should be possible > to abort the trasfer or to generate an audit message. > To find violations I must analyze all SMTP-Server-DEBUG-logs now, > when a sender tries to hide or modify his location. Realizing this has been talked to death, I would just like to also mention that disallowing such messages might mean you wouldn't get MX-List traffic. I have my cluster functioning as a single MX system (WKUVX1.WKU.EDU), so when WKUVX2 sends out mail, it claims to be WKUVX1.WKU.EDU. Perfectly legit, but it would be rejected by your scenario above. And MX does include both system names or addresses in the Received: line if the sender claims to be another system. For example, the line would look something like: Received: from wkuvx1.wku.edu (wkuvx2.wku.edu) by.... Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 05:49:32 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: buczek@FHI-Berlin.MPG.DE (Donald Buczek) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: MXmas wishlist Message-ID: <1994Dec29.115238.8300@rz-berlin.mpg.de> Date: 29 Dec 94 11:52:38 +0100 To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <00989853.99BECD19.19@ALPHA.WKU.EDU>, "Hunter Goatley, WKU" writes: > Realizing this has been talked to death [...] Agreed. Sorry I follow up anyway. > And MX does include both system names or addresses in the Received: > line if the sender claims to be another system. For example, the line > would look something like: > > Received: from wkuvx1.wku.edu (wkuvx2.wku.edu) by.... btw: Wouldn't it be more sensible not to resolve the address ? The machine answering the PTR query may well be the same machine the mail comes from. Assume some hacker got into your nameserver - changes the in-addr.arpa zone and uses the same machine to send anoying anonymous mail. Why not leave the IP address in the Received: line. Like Received: from test.no.where [141.14.129.231] by... instead of Received: from test.no.where (test.no.where) by ... The IP address is the only thing which has to have some truth in it, otherwise the TCP connection would be impossible. With the numeric address you can look up the whois database and inform the domain administrator of that zone. Or you can traceroute to the address and inform a neighbour organisation or you can still resolve it at a later time. Not that I think it really matters. But I dont see the reason to overwrite this last trace of what is happening with something less reliable. > Hunter Happy New Year ! Donald -- Donald Buczek buczek@FHI-Berlin.MPG.DE "It's a Boo..." ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 06:02:05 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: RE: MXmas wishlist Date: 29 Dec 1994 11:49:39 GMT Message-ID: <3du7oj$d7d@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <1994Dec29.115238.8300@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, buczek@FHI-Berlin.MPG.DE (Donald Buczek) writes: =In article <00989853.99BECD19.19@ALPHA.WKU.EDU>, = "Hunter Goatley, WKU" writes: = => Realizing this has been talked to death [...] = =Agreed. Sorry I follow up anyway. = => And MX does include both system names or addresses in the Received: => line if the sender claims to be another system. For example, the line => would look something like: => => Received: from wkuvx1.wku.edu (wkuvx2.wku.edu) by.... = =btw: Wouldn't it be more sensible not to resolve the address ? The =machine answering the PTR query may well be the same machine the =mail comes from. Assume some hacker got into your nameserver - changes =the in-addr.arpa zone and uses the same machine to send anoying =anonymous mail. Well, in that case, your network is compromised badly enough that it's not likely that MX's behavior is going to be terribly useful in detecting such things. Then, of course, there's the fact that MX only puts the name it actually found in the header line if the host DOESN'T resolve to the name given on the HELO line. You could, I suppose, have MX put the IP address in the received line on every message it handles, but in that case, you've got no indication there whether or not the address resolved correctly. =Why not leave the IP address in the Received: line. Like = = Received: from test.no.where [141.14.129.231] by... = =instead of = = Received: from test.no.where (test.no.where) by ... = =The IP address is the only thing which has to have some truth in it, NO, it doesn't have to have any truth in it. Somebody could set up a system as a TCP/IP router, set an arbitrary address on a machine on the far side of the router, send mail, from that machine, then set its address back to what it normally is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 11:52:04 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 12:50:57 EST From: Steve Kneizys Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00989AA3.4A142280.472@acad.ursinus.edu> Subject: RE: MXmas wishlist carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes in article <3du7oj$d7d@gap.cco.caltech.edu>: > >In article <1994Dec29.115238.8300@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, buczek@FHI-Berlin.MPG.DE (Donald Buczek) writes: >=btw: Wouldn't it be more sensible not to resolve the address ? The >=machine answering the PTR query may well be the same machine the >=mail comes from. Assume some hacker got into your nameserver - changes >=the in-addr.arpa zone and uses the same machine to send anoying >=anonymous mail. > >Well, in that case, your network is compromised badly enough that it's not >likely that MX's behavior is going to be terribly useful in detecting such >things. Then, of course, there's the fact that MX only puts the name it >actually found in the header line if the host DOESN'T resolve to the name given >on the HELO line. Yep, that would be a pretty comprimised net alright! Also: MX puts in the IP address if cannot resolve it, correct? > >=The IP address is the only thing which has to have some truth in it, > >NO, it doesn't have to have any truth in it. Somebody could set up a system as >a TCP/IP router, set an arbitrary address on a machine on the far side of the >router, send mail, from that machine, then set its address back to what it >normally is. Actually it has a lot of truth to it. The Mid-Level backbone service providers are required to filter out any invalid routes to prevent incorrect routing entries on the net at large. If the IP NET is not registered for that site, a TCP connection will not work with a machine outside that site. At the site, well...that is a matter of internal net security, but even in that case there would be a received line from a machine at that site. I think the best we can hope for is what it does now: Lookup the name from the IP, and make sure the valid machine name or it's IP address appears in the Received: line. Steve... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Steve Kneizys stevo@acad.ursinus.edu | | Director P.O. Box 1000 | | Academic Computing Collegeville, PA 19426 | | Phone (610) 489 4111 x 2244 | | Ursinus College FAX (610) 489 0634 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 12:43:41 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: RE: MXmas wishlist Date: 29 Dec 1994 18:40:44 GMT Message-ID: <3duvrc$pal@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <00989AA3.4A142280.472@acad.ursinus.edu>, Steve Kneizys writes: =carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) = writes in article <3du7oj$d7d@gap.cco.caltech.edu>: => =>In article <1994Dec29.115238.8300@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, buczek@FHI-Berlin.MPG.DE (Donald Buczek) writes: =>=btw: Wouldn't it be more sensible not to resolve the address ? The =>=machine answering the PTR query may well be the same machine the =>=mail comes from. Assume some hacker got into your nameserver - changes =>=the in-addr.arpa zone and uses the same machine to send anoying =>=anonymous mail. => =>Well, in that case, your network is compromised badly enough that it's not =>likely that MX's behavior is going to be terribly useful in detecting such =>things. Then, of course, there's the fact that MX only puts the name it =>actually found in the header line if the host DOESN'T resolve to the name given =>on the HELO line. = =Yep, that would be a pretty comprimised net alright! = =Also: MX puts in the IP address if cannot resolve it, correct? Correct: If the name doesn't resolve at all, you get the IP address. If the address DOES resolve, but not to the name given in the HELO command, then you get one of the nams to which it DID resolve. => =>=The IP address is the only thing which has to have some truth in it, => =>NO, it doesn't have to have any truth in it. Somebody could set up a system as =>a TCP/IP router, set an arbitrary address on a machine on the far side of the =>router, send mail, from that machine, then set its address back to what it =>normally is. = =Actually it has a lot of truth to it. The Mid-Level backbone service providers =are required to filter out any invalid routes to prevent incorrect routing =entries on the net at large. If the IP NET is not registered for that =site, a TCP connection will not work with a machine outside that site. = =At the site, well...that is a matter of internal net security, but even =in that case there would be a received line from a machine at that site. Why? If you've temporarily modified a machine's address, it will either resolve to the name of the machine that's supposed to have that address or won't resolve. In either case, you can't expect to have anything valid in the Received: line. And if the hacker then sets his address back to what it's supposed to be, you're unlikely to be able to figure out whence the message came at all. Unless, of course, your local network is sitting behind a firewall that doesn't pass packets. Then all you'll know is that the offending machine was somewhere on your side of the firwall. =I think the best we can hope for is what it does now: Lookup the name =from the IP, and make sure the valid machine name or it's IP address =appears in the Received: line. Agreed. Unless, of course, Hunter WERE to add an option which allowed you to reject messages if the HELO command doesn't agree with the address. Of course, were he to do that, using that option would likely cause bounced mail any time youre name servers went down, or, if you're still using host tables instead of name servers would prevent the receipt of mail from hosts not in your host tables. And, yes, the latter could be a non-trivial problem: You don't have to have a machine in your host tables to send mail to it, if you've specified a default route in your MX configuration. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 23:36:46 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 22:15:32 -0700 From: "Ray Harwood -- Data Basix: (602)721-1988" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: rharwood@Data.Basix.COM Message-ID: <00989AF2.294E1F66.23074@Data.Basix.COM> Subject: RE: MXmas wishlist carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU "I have spoken" wrote: > In article <1994Dec29.115238.8300@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, > buczek@FHI-Berlin.MPG.DE (Donald Buczek) writes: > =The IP address is the only thing which has to have some truth in it, > > NO, it doesn't have to have any truth in it. Somebody could set up a system > as > a TCP/IP router, set an arbitrary address on a machine on the far side of the > router, send mail, from that machine, then set its address back to what it > normally is. Jeezus H Criminey, Carl, lighten up! Don only said it had SOME truth to it! The point is, ANYONE can fake the connection, but you have to be in the right place on the net to fake the IP address. Specifically, you do have to have control of a router somewhere between where you want to break in and the place whose identity you want to assume. Kindof like anyone can make an obscene phone call, but it takes real presence to erect a bogus "Detour" sign. Ray ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 02:49:10 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: leebp@iscs.nus.sg Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 16:48:49 SST To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <00989B8D.AF35437A.4@iscs.nus.sg> Subject: Mail bounces to last gateway, not sender Dear Guys, I have a problem pertaining Bitnet mails and I would appreciate any help or pointers. I have the following mail link setup and I'm running MX 4.1 on my VMS cluster with common MX root, common mail queue and common configuration file (i.e. common paths etc ..) and Wingra's Jnet/TCP/AXP 3.6: BITNET World ---> NUSVM.BITNET ---> NUSDISCS.BITNET (MX4.1 JNET) ^ (Dec7610 AXP which is part of cluster) | | leonis.nus.sg (for sending test mails) When Bitnet mails come through NUSVM.BITNET and goes to a user on NUSDISCS.BITNET and if the user does not exist, the mail is bounced to the postmaster or mailer of the last gateway, NUSVM.BITNET, instead of returning to the sender. I have included 2 test cases which involved sending mail from iscleebp@leonis.nus.sg using the address leebp@nusdiscs.bitnet. The unsuccessful case should bounce to iscleebp@leonis but it doesn't. Note that the problem occurs for all Bitnet mail only. An interesting point is that the first return path is as follows: Return-Path: <@iscs.nus.sg:MAILER@NUSVM.BITNET> followed by: Return-Path: Could this, then be the problem, and do I have to include any rewriting rule to bypass this? I would be grateful for any help. Thanks a lot and happy new year. Paul =============================================================================== CASE 1: User exists (Received following mail from iscleebp@leonis.nus.sg) From: MX%"iscleebp@leonis.nus.sg" 30-DEC-1994 12:40:35.15 To: LEEBP CC: Subj: Return-Path: <@iscs.nus.sg:MAILER@NUSVM.BITNET> Received: from NUSVM (MAILER) by iscs.nus.sg (MX V4.1 AXP) with Jnet; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 12:40:31 SST Return-Path: Received: from NUSVM (NJE origin SMTP@NUSVM) by NUSVM.NUS.SG (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6774; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 12:41:43 +0800 Received: from leonis.nus.sg by NUSVM.NUS.SG (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Fri, 30 Dec 94 12:41:42 SST Received: (from iscleebp@localhost) by leonis.nus.sg (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) id MAA32565 for leebp@nusdiscs.bitnet; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 12:40:33 +0800 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 12:40:33 +0800 From: lee boon peng Message-ID: <199412300440.MAA32565@leonis.nus.sg> Apparently-To: leebp@nusdiscs.bitnet hello =============================================================================== =============================================================================== CASE 2: User does not exist From: MX%"Postmaster@iscs.nus.sg" 30-DEC-1994 11:18:41.11 To: MX%"<@iscs.nus.sg:MAILER@NUSVM.BITNET>" CC: MX%"Postmaster@iscs.nus.sg" Subj: LOCAL delivery error Return-Path: <> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 11:18:36 SST From: Local delivery agent To: <@iscs.nus.sg:MAILER@NUSVM.BITNET> CC: Postmaster@iscs.nus.sg Subject: LOCAL delivery error X-Report-Type: Nondelivery; boundary="> Error description:" Note: this message was generated automatically. An error was detected while processing the enclosed message. A list of the affected recipients follows. This list is in a special format that allows software like LISTSERV to automatically take action on incorrect addresses; you can safely ignore the numeric codes. --> Error description: Error-For: lugj@iscs.nus.sg Error-Code: 3 Error-Text: No such local user Error-End: 1 error detected ------------------------------ Rejected message ------------------------------ Received: from NUSVM (MAILER) by iscs.nus.sg (MX V4.1 AXP) with Jnet; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 11:18:33 SST Return-Path: Received: from NUSVM (NJE origin SMTP@NUSVM) by NUSVM.NUS.SG (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6609; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 11:19:46 +0800 Received: from leonis.nus.sg by NUSVM.NUS.SG (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Fri, 30 Dec 94 11:19:45 SST Received: (from iscleebp@localhost) by leonis.nus.sg (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) id LAA12968 for lugj@nusdiscs.bitnet; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 11:18:35 +0800 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 11:18:35 +0800 From: lee boon peng Message-ID: <199412300318.LAA12968@leonis.nus.sg> Apparently-To: lugj@nusdiscs.bitnet hello 2.. =============================================================================== Some config info for MX 4.1 (Jnet) ---------------------------------- Domain-to-path mappings: Domain="NUSDISCS.BITNET", Path=Local Domain="ISCS.NUS.SG", Path=Local Domain="NUSDISCS", Path=Local Domain="*.ISCS.NUS.SG", Path=SMTP Domain="*.BITNET", Path=SMTP, Route="NUSVM.NUS.SG" Domain="*", Path=SMTP, Route="MAILHOST.ISCS.NUS.SG" MCP> show jnet JNET agent settings: Automatic percent-hack handling: enabled BSMTP replies: disabled Accounting: enabled Lenient about gatewaying mail: yes Primary mailer username: MAILER MCP> queue show/full Entry: 2, Origin: [Jnet] <@iscs.nus.sg:MAILER@NUSVM.BITNET> Status: IN-PROGRESS, size: 0 bytes Created: 30-DEC-1994 12:35:22.41, expires 29-JAN-1995 12:35:22.41 Last modified 30-DEC-1994 12:35:22.41 Recipient #1: ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 08:14:11 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: RE: MXmas wishlist Date: 30 Dec 1994 14:08:52 GMT Message-ID: <3e149k$cd5@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <00989AF2.294E1F66.23074@Data.Basix.COM>, "Ray Harwood -- Data Basix: (602)721-1988" writes: =carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU "I have spoken" wrote: => In article <1994Dec29.115238.8300@rz-berlin.mpg.de>, => buczek@FHI-Berlin.MPG.DE (Donald Buczek) writes: => =The IP address is the only thing which has to have some truth in it, => => NO, it doesn't have to have any truth in it. Somebody could set up a system => as => a TCP/IP router, set an arbitrary address on a machine on the far side of the => router, send mail, from that machine, then set its address back to what it => normally is. = =Jeezus H Criminey, Carl, lighten up! Don only said it had SOME truth to it! =The point is, ANYONE can fake the connection, but you have to be in the right =place on the net to fake the IP address. Specifically, you do have to have =control of a router somewhere between where you want to break in and the place =whose identity you want to assume. = =Kindof like anyone can make an obscene phone call, but it takes real presence =to erect a bogus "Detour" sign. Please read back through the thread. You'll find that this whole subthread is conditional on somone having breached your network security sufficiently that they've taken over your name servers. Now, given that, and the low level of security on a lot of systems out there (especially unix systems), in many cases it would be fairly trivial for the person who took over your name server to do what I described above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 12:08:29 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 11:01:45 MST From: Ask me about Star Stare '95 Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com Message-ID: <00989B5D.3368F500.9@borgil.cxo.dec.com> Subject: Reading a Mime message from Pine... Sorry if you don't feel this is appropriate for this list but... I received an internet mail message from a customer that includes a BIN64 encoded MIME message. MX_DECODE does not seem to work on decoding it. Are there any other tools (for VMS please) that can read this? (I found munpack but this isn't for VMS. BTW: The MIME message was sent from a system using the PINE mailer (if that makes a difference). Included below is a complete extract of a small messeage they sent me (the others are huge). Thanks for any pointers or tips (This MIME stuff is completely new to me). Mike ---------------- Begin Included Message --------------------- --1915901871-53005926-788644904=:4830 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; name="owr_vrr.h" Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: Content-Description: LyogT1dSX1ZBX1JEQl9SRUNPUkQtVHlwZWRlZmluZSBmb3IgYW4gdmFsdmUg UkRCIHJlY29yZCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgKi8NDQp0eXBlZGVm IHN0cnVjdA0NCnsNDQogICBjaGFyIHZhbHZlX2lkWzldOw0NCiAgIGNoYXIg ZWZmZWN0aXZlX2Zyb21bMTddOw0NCiAgIGNoYXIgZWZmZWN0aXZlX3RvWzE3 XTsNDQogICBjaGFyIGRpc3RyaWN0X2lkWzNdOw0NCiAgIGNoYXIgdXNlX2Fi YW5kb25faW5kWzldOw0NCiAgIGNoYXIgbWFudWZhY3R1cmVyWzMxXTsNDQog ICBjaGFyIG1vZGVsWzMxXTsNDQogICBjaGFyIG1hdGVyaWFsWzldOw0NCiAg IGNoYXIgdHlwZVsxMV07DQ0KICAgY2hhciBzaXplWzldOw0NCiAgIGNoYXIg c3RkX2Rpcl90b19vcGVuX2ZsYWdbMl07DQ0KICAgY2hhciBkaXJfdG9fb3Bl blszXTsNDQogICBjaGFyIGNsb3N1cmVfc3RhdHVzWzldOw0NCiAgIGNoYXIg b3BlcmF0aW5nX3N0YXR1c1syMV07DQ0KICAgY2hhciBsb25nX21lYXN1cmVt ZW50WzIxXTsNDQogICBjaGFyIGxvbmdfbWVhc3VyZW1lbnRfcmVmWzgxXTsN DQogICBjaGFyIHNob3J0X21lYXN1cmVtZW50WzQxXTsNDQogICBjaGFyIHJl YXNvbl9yZW1vdmFsWzldOw0NCiAgIGNoYXIgcmVhc29uX2hpc3RvcnlbOV07 DQ0KICAgY2hhciBpbnN0YWxsX2RhdGVbMTddOw0NCiAgIGNoYXIgcmVtb3Zh bF9kYXRlWzE3XTsNDQogICBjaGFyIHJlcGxhY2VtZW50X2ZsYWdbMl07DQ0K ICAgZG91YmxlIHg7DQ0KICAgZG91YmxlIHk7DQ0KICAgY2hhciB1c2VyX2lk WzIxXTsNDQp9IE9XUl9WQV9SREJfUkVDT1JEOw0NCg== ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 15:10:45 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 15:10:32 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <00989B7F.F446962F.27@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: MXmas wishlist Steve Kneizys writes: > >Also: MX puts in the IP address if cannot resolve it, correct? > Yes. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU)