Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 05:18:27 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 03:11:07 -0800 Message-ID: <9502011111.AA23632@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu From: scot@vmpyr.wro.dec.com (Scot Bishop-Walker) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: "Gotchas" with VMS upgrade? I've got a VAXstation Model 76 currently running VMS v5.2, UCX v3.1 (EC05) and MX v4.1. I'm going to be upgrading to OpenVMS v6.1 shortly, with all the trials that includes. Is anyone aware of any particular gotchas with MX in rgards to this upgrade? Thanks! - Scot <-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------> | Scot Bishop-Walker | Digital Equipment Corporation | Northern California PC Integration Services | This | Space <-----------------------------------------------+ for | rent Digital Equipment Corporation | cheap! M/S: WRO1-2/R20 | Santa Clara CA 95054 USA | | <-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------> ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 07:41:50 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 12:18:26 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: <0098B556.6171CE8B.10@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> Subject: RE: "Gotchas" with VMS upgrade? We upgraded a few months ago from VMS V5.5-2 to V6.1 on VAX side and V1.5 to V6.1 on AXP side. At the time we were running MX V3.3, and it broke badly after a few days. However, upgrading to MX V4.1 solved all our problems, and we have run successfully with it for 5 months. UCX up to V3.2+ECO01 works fine in this setup. Regards, John Hill ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 08:24:25 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 08:23:57 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098B535.9F6AED48.35@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: "Gotchas" with VMS upgrade? scot@vmpyr.wro.dec.com (Scot Bishop-Walker) writes: > >I've got a VAXstation Model 76 currently running VMS v5.2, UCX v3.1 (EC05) >and MX v4.1. > >I'm going to be upgrading to OpenVMS v6.1 shortly, with all the trials that >includes. > From V5.2?? Yuck! >Is anyone aware of any particular gotchas with MX in rgards to this upgrade? > I can't think of anything except possibly the MAILSHR stuff. If I were you, I'd reinstall MX as an upgrade, just to be sure there are no problems. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 09:38:49 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 10:37:33 EST From: kamrul@ycvax.york.cuny.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <0098B548.49781920.23@ycvax.york.cuny.edu> Subject: Problems with Upgrade to MX4.1 Hello everbody on the list. I have upgraded from MX 3.3 to MX 4.1. ( VMS 5.5 and UCX 2.0D). Everything seem to have gone ok except when I tried to use the old configuration file I got many warning messages saying unrecognized command verb even though it created new configuration file from old one. Everything seem to be working and in place despite those warning messages. Do I need to worry about those messages. Here is part of the log file: ___________________________________________________________________________ VMSINSTAL procedure done at 17:46 $ @sys$startup:mx_startup logicals $ mcp :== $mx_exe:mcp $ mcp MCP> @mx_dir:old_config Configuration file: MX_DEVICE:[MX]MX_CONFIG.MXCFG;44 %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling \CONFIGURATION\ MX version id is: MX V3.3 VAX %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling \MX\ System (privileged) users: %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling \SYSTEM\ "SYSTEM@YCVAX.YORK.CUNY.EDU" %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling \"SYSTEM@YCVAX.YORK.CUNY.EDU"\ "KAM@YCVAX.YORK.CUNY.EDU" %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling \"KAM@YCVAX.YORK.CUNY.EDU"\ Mailing lists: %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling \MAILING\ Name: test %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling \NAME\ Owner: "kam@YCVAX.YORK.CUNY.EDU" %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling \OWNER\ Reply-to: NOList, Sender %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling \REPLY\ Archive: TESTDISK:[ARCHIVE] %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling \ARCHIVE\ Description: test list %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling \DESCRIPTION\ Errors-to: kam@ycvax.york.cuny.edu %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling \ERRORS\ Strip header: NOReceived %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling ___________________________________________________________________________ It kept on and on for pages.......... It seem to have given warning for each single word. Do I need to do anything about it Everything seems to be working fine and configured right. ***************************************************************** MCP> save mx_dir:mx_config.mxcfg %MCP-I-WROTECFG, wrote configuration to file MX_DEVICE:[MX]MX_CONFIG.MXCFG;45 ***************************************************************** TIA /\ 0 Kamrul Ahsan /\ // \ /\ York College, CUNY /// \////// \/ \\\ Jamaica, NY 11451 / //// \ \\_____ Voice 718-262-2754 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Internet: kamrul@ycvax.york.cuny.edu Bitnet: Kamyc@cunyvm ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 09:57:30 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 09:55:46 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098B542.735CBF76.21@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Problems with Upgrade to MX4.1 kamrul@ycvax.york.cuny.edu writes: > >Hello everbody on the list. > >I have upgraded from MX 3.3 to MX 4.1. ( VMS 5.5 and UCX 2.0D). >Everything seem to have gone ok except when I tried to use the >old configuration file I got many warning messages saying >unrecognized command verb even though it created new configuration file >from old one. Everything seem to be working and in place despite >those warning messages. Do I need to worry about those messages. > You didn't save the old configuration correctly; you should have used: MCP SHOW ALL/COMMAND/OUT=OLD_CONFIG.COM You left off the /COMMAND when you did it. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 10:01:44 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 10:01:09 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098B543.33A06B39.1@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Problems with Upgrade to MX4.1 "Hunter Goatley, WKU" writes: > >You didn't save the old configuration correctly; you should have used: > > MCP SHOW ALL/COMMAND/OUT=OLD_CONFIG.COM > >You left off the /COMMAND when you did it. > And I should have said that everything is still working OK because MX read the old configuration file that was still there. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 10:10:15 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 17:09:16 +0100 From: JP Laine - C U C Limoges Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: JP.Laine@unilim.fr Message-ID: <0098B57F.024B8F00.20031@limvax.unilim.fr> Subject: Mailing List Help ! I have a problem with a "mailing list" on MX. The characteristics of these list are : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mailing lists: Name: www-cucl Owner: "laine@UNILIM.FR" Reply-to: NOList, Sender Archive: MX_ROOT:[MLF] Description: Discussion www - CRI LIMOGES - Errors-to: laine@unilim.fr Strip header: NOReceived Private list: No Protection: (SYSTEM:RWED,OWNER:RWED,GROUP:RWED,WORLD:E) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The SUBSCRIBE command seems ok. But when i want to post a message on the list www-cucl I have an acces problem. Why ? I don't understand. For the REVIEW command I have the same problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: MX%"Postmaster@cucl.unilim.fr" 27-JAN-1995 09:22:51.84 To: LAINE CC: Subj: Mailing list or file server error Return-Path: <> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 09:22:47 +0100 From: Mailing list & file server To: Subject: Mailing list or file server error Note: this message was generated automatically. The following error(s) occurred during local delivery of your message. Error in delivery to mailing list www-cucl: access denied; send subscription requests to www-cucl-Request@cucl.unilim.fr ------------------------------ Rejected message ------------------------------ Received: by limvax.unilim.fr (MX V3.3 VAX) id 17018; Fri, 27 Jan 1995 09:22:46 +0100 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 09:22:44 +0100 From: JP Laine - C U C Limoges To: www-cucl@unilim.fr CC: JP.Laine@unilim.fr Message-ID: <0098B150.01AF85C0.17018@limvax.unilim.fr> Subject: Mail on www Helo-Helo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have enable MX_MLF_DEBUG to generate log files. Nothing very interesting in these log. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 31-JAN-1995 14:35:22.88 Processing queue entry number 18896 31-JAN-1995 14:35:23.39 Checking local name: www-cucl-Request 31-JAN-1995 14:35:23.39 This is a list control address. 31-JAN-1995 14:35:23.42 LIST_CTRL_REQ: Message is from: JP.Laine@unilim.fr 31-JAN-1995 14:35:23.56 LIST_CTRL_REQ: command is: Review www-cucl 31-JAN-1995 14:35:23.63 CHECK_ACCESS: checking JP.Laine@unilim.fr for access mask=00000001 31-JAN-1995 14:35:23.63 CHECK_ACCESS: Access check failed. Requested access denied. 31-JAN-1995 14:35:27.27 LIST_CTRL_REQ: command is: quit 31-JAN-1995 14:35:27.82 All done with this entry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank's for your respons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jean Pierre LAINE ! Telephone: (33) 55-45-75-78 Universite de Limoges - CUCL ! Telecopie: (33) 55-45-75-95 Centre Universitaire de Calcul ! e-mail: Allee Andre Maurois ! F-87065 LIMOGES Cedex ! Internet: laine@unilim.fr ! Decnet : 51.21::laine ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jean Pierre LAINE ! Telephone: (33) 55-45-75-78 Universite de Limoges - CUCL ! Telecopie: (33) 55-45-75-95 Centre Universitaire de Calcul ! e-mail: Allee Andre Maurois ! F-87065 LIMOGES Cedex ! Internet: laine@unilim.fr ! Decnet : 51.21::laine ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 10:49:01 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 11:47:05 EST From: Irv Eisen Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098B552.000E42A0.6@ccstat.mc.duke.edu> Subject: RE: "Gotchas" with VMS upgrade? <>I've got a VAXstation Model 76 currently running VMS v5.2, UCX v3.1 (EC05) <>and MX v4.1. <> <>I'm going to be upgrading to OpenVMS v6.1 shortly, with all the trials that <>includes. <> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098B54B.B596CA40.50@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: "Gotchas" with VMS upgrade? Irv Eisen writes: > ><>I've got a VAXstation Model 76 currently running VMS v5.2, UCX v3.1 (EC05) ><>and MX v4.1. ><> ><>I'm going to be upgrading to OpenVMS v6.1 shortly, with all the trials that ><>includes. ><> >< [...] >Why did you say 'Yuck!' I just got around to upgrading from 5.5 to 5.5-2. >Am I going to want to go to 6.1 REAL soon? > I just meant that going from V5.2 to V6.1 means upgrading through V5.4, V5.5, etc., a tedious process, if nothing else. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 11:48:31 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 17:45:24 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: <0098B584.0EB3D6E4.8@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> Subject: RE: "Gotchas" with VMS upgrade? #<>I've got a VAXstation Model 76 currently running VMS v5.2, UCX v3.1 (EC05) #<>and MX v4.1. #<> #<>I'm going to be upgrading to OpenVMS v6.1 shortly, with all the trials that #<>includes. #<> # Date: 1 Feb 95 15:27:29 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Hi, We've got a problem with somebody sending a bum message to the SMTP Server, which causes the server to crash with an access violation: STM[3]: Send "220 vax.ox.ac.uk MX V4.1 VAX SMTP server ready at Wed, 01 Feb 1995 14:48:34 +0000" STM[3]: Receive "HELO s_cook" STM[3]: Send "250 Name lookup failed for s_cook" STM[3]: Receive "MAIL FROM:" STM[3]: Send "501 Invalid address: " STM[3]: Error: status=20DC Shouldn't the server just reject the message rather than crashing? (Our setup is VAX/VMS 6.1, UCX 3.1 ECO5, Netlib 2.0B, MX 4.1) Dave -- David Hastings | VAX Systems Programmer | GO NINERS!!! Oxford University Computing Services | david.hastings@oucs.ox.ac.uk | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 12:32:15 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:30:18 -0600 (CST) From: METZE@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu CC: METZE@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu Message-ID: <950201123018.19b@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu> Subject: a good word for 6.1 I just wanted to comment that the upgrade from 1.5 to 6.1 on our alphas was one of the smoothest upgrades I've done. Knock on wood. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 12:57:17 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 10:52:32 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Rand Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Is V4.1 pretty stable, now? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi, We have a mix of MX V3.1, V3.2, and V3.3 running on four VAX/VMS systems, and I was thinking of upgrading to V4.1. MX has been so reliable here for so long, that I haven't had much incentive to upgrade, but I think it's getting to be about time anyway. Can I expect V4.1 to be similarly stable? Would it be smarter to wait for the next version? Is V4.1 the latest version? I only care about SMTP over TCP/IP. Thanks for the help! -- Phil -- -- Phil Rand prand@spu.edu -- Computer & Information Systems (206) 281-2428 -- Seattle Pacific University, 3307 3rd Ave W, Seattle, WA 98119 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 14:12:39 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 14:07:52 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Stacks Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: "Gotchas" with VMS upgrade? To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098B565.AB363300.3@adpce.lrk.ar.us> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Irv Eisen writes: > ><>I've got a VAXstation Model 76 currently running VMS v5.2, UCX v3.1 (EC05) ><>and MX v4.1. ##### look here ^^^^ ##### ><> ><>I'm going to be upgrading to OpenVMS v6.1 shortly, with all the trials that ><>includes. ><> >< > >Why did you say 'Yuck!' I just got around to upgrading from 5.5 to 5.5-2. >Am I going to want to go to 6.1 REAL soon? > You went from 5.5 to 5.5-2, the other person is going FROM >> 5.2 << to 6.1 just a *little* bit of difference... ;-) -- 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 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 14:55:07 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 14:54:17 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098B56C.2719A26C.25@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Is V4.1 pretty stable, now? Phil Rand writes: > >We have a mix of MX V3.1, V3.2, and V3.3 running on four VAX/VMS systems, >and I was thinking of upgrading to V4.1. MX has been so reliable here for >so long, that I haven't had much incentive to upgrade, but I think it's >getting to be about time anyway. > >Can I expect V4.1 to be similarly stable? Would it be smarter to wait for >the next version? Is V4.1 the latest version? > Yes, V4.1 is the current version. Despite a few problems a few sites are reporting, MX V4.1 appears to be quite stable. I have no timetable for V4.2, so there's no reason to wait for that.... Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 14:57:36 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 14:53:37 +0200 (IST) From: chanaka Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: To: mx-list Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII set nomail ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 15:05:02 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 15:03:09 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098B56D.64352D87.39@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: SMTP Server crashes when name lookup fails daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Dave Hastings, OUCS) writes: > >Hi, > >We've got a problem with somebody sending a bum message to the SMTP Server, >which causes the server to crash with an access violation: > There's some other problem: >STM[3]: Error: status=20DC > >Shouldn't the server just reject the message rather than crashing? > That's: %SYSTEM-F-CONNECFAIL, connect to network object timed-out or failed But that shouldn't cause the Server to die. I'll add it to the list.... Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 15:05:35 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 15:04:32 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098B56D.95D4B51A.41@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Mailing List JP Laine - C U C Limoges writes: > >Help ! > >I have a problem with a "mailing list" on MX. >The characteristics of these list are : [...] > Protection: (SYSTEM:RWED,OWNER:RWED,GROUP:RWED,WORLD:E) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >The SUBSCRIBE command seems ok. But when i want to post a message on the >list www-cucl I have an acces problem. >Why ? I don't understand. For the REVIEW command I have the same problem. > Check the list to be sure that this address is what's on the list: >31-JAN-1995 14:35:23.42 LIST_CTRL_REQ: Message is from: JP.Laine@unilim.fr >31-JAN-1995 14:35:23.56 LIST_CTRL_REQ: command is: Review www-cucl >31-JAN-1995 14:35:23.63 CHECK_ACCESS: checking JP.Laine@unilim.fr for access mask=00000001 If the subscriber is just "laine@...", then it'll fail to match. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 01:57:06 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: A commercial version of MX? Message-ID: <1995Feb1.234852@cam1> From: henderson@mln.com (Javier Henderson) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: 1 Feb 95 23:48:52 PST To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <1714331731011995/A10049/OXFORD/1191FC610D00*@MHS>, John Powers writes: > > We have had a look at commercial product called PMDF, supplied in > the UK by Essential Computing from a parent company called Innosoft. > Ironically, he is put off that product because he feels it is too > expensive! Has anybody else heard of that product? If so, how does > it compare with MX? We may end up having to use that if we can find > nothing else .. I've used PMDF in the past, up to version 4.something, at a previous job. It's a great product with a lot of features, but pricey. It does, however, offer some features that MX doesn't have, such as support for faxmodems, alpha pagers, MIME messages, etc. I looked at it again a couple of years ago when I had to decide for a mailer for my (then) new employer, and settled on MX. The support I got from this group and from Hunter by email was superb, and it's been working very well for us. We don't need all the features that PMDF offers above what MX has, so we saved a bunch of money. -- Javier Henderson (JH21) henderson@mln.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 05:16:31 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 14:43:48 +0330 From: shahriar@IREARN.BITNET Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098B633.DA4BAE80.833@IREARN.BITNET> Subject: Problem with our system Hi, I have installed MX 4.1 on a VAXstation 4000 VLC running VMS 5.5 with UCX 1.3. I did everything as described in the Installation Guide. But when starting up the MX, there will be some processes aborted, e.g. MX SMTP delivery agent which runs just for a few seconds. So I can not send any mails. All sent mails reside in send queue. The MX SMTP Server stays there and accepts the incoming mails. In the following lines I included the commands issued and their output. As it is shown, the SMTP delivery agent DNSMTP delivery/server agents aborted and they are not among the running processes. I tried to run the images interactively to show more about the possible problems. Please let me know what can I do to fix this up. Shahriar Pourazin ----------------------------------------------------------------------- $ $ type mx_dir:mx_startup_info.dat 001NETLIB:* 002FLQ_MGR:* 002ROUTER:*=1 003LOCAL:*=1 004DNSMTP:*=1 004SMTP:*=2 004SMTP_SERVER:* 005MLF:* $ $ @sys$startup:mx_startup logicals $ submit/noprint/user=mailer sys$startup:mx_startup.com Job MX_STARTUP (queue SYS$BATCH, entry 4) started on PIGEONQ $ $ sho sys VAX/VMS V5.5 on node PIGEON 2-FEB-1995 13:55:29.86 Uptime 0 01:44:29 Pid Process Name State Pri I/O CPU Page flts Ph.Mem . . . . . . . . . 0000004C NETACP HIB 10 423 0 00:00:02.88 218 404 0000004D EVL HIB 6 114 0 00:00:00.48 1971 41 N 0000004E REMACP HIB 9 22 0 00:00:00.08 79 51 0000004F NETBIOS HIB 10 18 0 00:00:00.15 133 255 00000050 LATACP HIB 14 11 0 00:00:00.16 266 249 00000051 INET_ACP HIB 9 23 0 00:00:00.26 209 206 00000052 UCX$INET_ROUTED LEF 6 41 0 00:00:00.36 260 505 S 00000053 UCX$FTPD LEF 8 15 0 00:00:00.22 207 410 00000054 NFS$SERVER LEF 10 54 0 00:00:00.54 1311 1006 0000005D RPC$SWL HIB 9 25 0 00:00:00.07 122 192 . . . 0000009F MX FLQ Manager HIB 5 27 0 00:00:00.19 175 248 000000A1 MX Router HIB 5 33 0 00:00:00.26 244 486 000000A4 MX Local HIB 5 25 0 00:00:00.27 211 371 000000A9 MX SMTP Server HIB 5 19 0 00:00:00.19 215 411 000000AA MX MLF HIB 5 17 0 00:00:00.16 179 326 $ $ $ run mx_exe:mx_smtp.exe 2-FEB-1995 13:57:33.32: SYSTEM (pid 00000066) starting %SYSTEM-F-NOLOGNAM, no logical name match %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows module name routine name line rel PC abs PC MX_SMTP MX_SMTP 32 00000044 000020A4 $ $ run mx_exe:mx_dnsmtp.exe 2-FEB-1995 13:59:50.42: SYSTEM (pid 00000066) starting %SYSTEM-F-IVLOGNAM, invalid logical name %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows module name routine name line rel PC abs PC MX_DNSMTP MX_DNSMTP 31 00000044 00001844 $ $ run mx_exe:dnsmtp_server.exe %SYSTEM-F-NOSUCHDEV, no such device available %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows module name routine name line rel PC abs PC DNSMTP_SERVER ACCEPT_CONNECTION 311 00000035 00001655 DNSMTP_SERVER DNSMTP_SERVER 259 000001E1 000015E1 $ $ $ write sys$output "''f$getsyi(""free_gblsects"")'" 102 $ write sys$output "''f$getsyi(""free_gblpages"")'" 22918 $ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 07:17:34 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 07:17:20 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098B5F5.7B4D589F.25@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Problem with our system shahriar@IREARN.BITNET writes: > >I have installed MX 4.1 on a VAXstation 4000 VLC running VMS 5.5 with >UCX 1.3. I did everything as described in the Installation Guide. But >when starting up the MX, there will be some processes aborted, e.g. MX >SMTP delivery agent which runs just for a few seconds. So I can not send >any mails. All sent mails reside in send queue. The MX SMTP Server stays >there and accepts the incoming mails. > [...] >$ run mx_exe:mx_smtp.exe > 2-FEB-1995 13:57:33.32: SYSTEM (pid 00000066) starting >%SYSTEM-F-NOLOGNAM, no logical name match Your UCX setup is incorrect; unfortunately, UCX likes to do that to you. The problem is that you don't have both UCX$INET_DOMAIN and UCX$INET_HOST defined. If you don't define the node names just perfectly in UCX, then both logicals aren't defined, even though they're supposed to be there. You can either play with UCX, or you can add the following to your system startup: $ define/sys/exec ucx$inet_host "host-name" $ define/sys/exec ucx$inet_domain "your-domain" Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 19:25:11 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: dlq@groucho.dev.uga.edu (David Quarterman) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: smtp_server failure Date: 3 Feb 1995 00:07:37 GMT Message-ID: <3grs49$n9r@hobbes.cc.uga.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Environment is VMS 6.1, UCX 3.1 patch ECO 5, MX 4.1 and the netlib that was distributed with 4.1. This is on an 4100 VAX local area cluster of 11 machines 3 axp and 8 vax type. Things were running fine until this afternoon, then after adding one more machine to the path list as local to the cluster, smtp_server began to fail. It is not clear if something else happened or whether our changes triggered the problem. UCX has not been shut down and restarted as we have a number of users on the system. Then after doing a mcp reset of smtp_server and router to pick up the new info in mxconfig Smtp_server refuses to stay up. Immediately after starting it, it fails with the following in the smtp_server.log. Have done a define/sys/exec smtp_server_debug true with sufficient privs to make the definition in the system table in exec mode. I remember seeing some way to find out how to get text for a numeric error but the set message mx_msg and then help/message 10000094 comes back with message not found. Checked the netlib and mx executables and they are unchanged since they were generated on 7 aug 1994. Changed the control files mx_config.mxcfg, mx_startup_info.dat, mx_logicals.dat back to the versions before this afternoon's changes and the problem presists. Have totally shut down mx and restarted it a couple of times. No good luck from that tho. I've run out of ideas, have any of you a clue to what may be the cause of the problem? Ideas will be gratefully accepted. The following is the smtp_server.log 2-FEB-1995 18:33:05.64: MX SMTP Server (pid 376014AC) starting 2-FEB-1995 18:33:06.09: MX SMTP Server (pid 376014AC) exiting, status = 10000094 David Quarterman dlq@uga.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 20:43:38 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 18:41:54 PST From: Virtual Bill Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098B655.1D6BD020.20@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com> Subject: RE: smtp_server failure >I remember seeing some way to find out how to get text for a numeric error >but the set message mx_msg and then help/message 10000094 comes back with >message not found. David, you've got a duplicate name some place, thats what the error 10000094 breaks out. Use the commands $ SET MESSAGE MX_EXE:MX_MSG $ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT F$MESSAGE("%X10000094") Check your config file for a duplicate node name. ============================================================================= | 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, 03 Feb 1995 04:32:16 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 02:29:38 -0800 Message-ID: <9502031029.AA13949@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "MAIL-11 Daemon" From: scot@vmpyr.wro.dec.com (Scot Bishop-Walker) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: "Gotchas" with VMS upgrade? >I can't think of anything except possibly the MAILSHR stuff. If I >were you, I'd reinstall MX as an upgrade, just to be sure there are no >problems. Sounds good...thanks for the input. - Scot <-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------> | Scot Bishop-Walker | Digital Equipment Corporation | Northern California PC Integration Services | This | Space <-----------------------------------------------+ for | rent Digital Equipment Corporation | cheap! M/S: WRO1-2/R20 | Santa Clara CA 95054 USA | | <-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------> ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 1995 04:32:48 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 02:29:43 -0800 Message-ID: <9502031029.AA13955@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "MAIL-11 Daemon" From: scot@vmpyr.wro.dec.com (Scot Bishop-Walker) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: "Gotchas" with VMS upgrade? >><>I've got a VAXstation Model 76 currently running VMS v5.2, UCX v3.1 (EC05) >><>and MX v4.1. > ##### look here ^^^^ ##### >><> >>>< >> >>Why did you say 'Yuck!' I just got around to upgrading from 5.5 to 5.5-2. >>Am I going to want to go to 6.1 REAL soon? >> > >You went from 5.5 to 5.5-2, the other person is going FROM >> 5.2 << to 6.1 > Oops...that was a typo on MY part, in the original message. I'm running VAX/VMS v5.5-2, NOT v5.2. It was alte at night, and I was tired...sorry! The upgrade should be easy. Just pull it from the CD. The part I don't like is having to reinstall my layered products, so they get added to the registry. I suppose it's a good thing, though. MX is my most current piece of software. The rest is about two years old. (And to think...I work for Digital!?!? I have access to all this stuff, and I stioll don't do it.) - Scot <-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------> | Scot Bishop-Walker | Digital Equipment Corporation | Northern California PC Integration Services | This | Space <-----------------------------------------------+ for | rent Digital Equipment Corporation | cheap! M/S: WRO1-2/R20 | Santa Clara CA 95054 USA | | <-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------> ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 1995 10:55:29 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: dhuddleson@krypton.gandalf.ca (David Huddleson) Subject: Mime capability with MX Date: 3 Feb 1995 15:58:52 GMT Message-ID: <3gtjrs$knn@hobbit.gandalf.ca> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU I was wondering if MX is "MIME-aware" or capable for incoming and outgoing messages. What I'm really asking is can MX detect binary attachments on outgoing mail and convert them to a MIME format before delivery out via SMTP. And on the contrary, how about MIME-tagged inbound messages? I'm running MX 4.0-1 at the present, with ALL-IN-1 delivering messages via Message Router to VMS Mail when going via SMTP. My TCP/IP is Multinet 3.3c. David Huddleson Gandalf Technologies Inc. dhuddleson@krypton.gandalf.ca ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 1995 21:25:34 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: dongray@genrad.co.uk (Derek Dongray) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: .XX domains Message-ID: <1995Jan31.200953.36@genrad.co.uk> Date: 31 Jan 95 20:09:53 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <3g1aqk$61m@news.arc.nasa.gov>, wing@tgv.com ("Dan Wing") writes: > In article <0098AE63.3799DEA3.7@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk>, "John Hill, Cavendish Lab, Cambridge Univ. (01223-337243)" writes: > #> ...(Except for Great Britain. > #>According to ISO 3166 and Internet tradition, Great Britain's top-level > #>domain should be gb. Instead Great Britain and Northern Ireland use the > #>top-level domain uk.... > # > #You mean like the U.S.A. should use the top-level domain "us"??!! :-) > > There is a .US domain -- however, historical reasons explain why a lot of > domains aren't .US, and large multinational companies (Cisco, Ford, DEC, > etc.) probably 'shouldn't' have geographically-restrictive domain names. > > ... And who's to say that a new, currently-local company, might not turn > into next year's multinational, and want/need/desire a non-geographically- > restrictive domain name. Of course, by this argument most of the .edu sites should be .edu.us (since they aren't likely to become multinationals). Also how would a .co.uk company go about acquiring a .com name if it didn't have a US office? > (Traceroute to Asylum.SF.CA.US for a good example. This system used to > be located near San Francisco, CA. The system is on the east coast now.] This just shows that it's a bad idea to be too specific in putting in the geographics location! :-) -- Derek Dongray, Systems Manager, GenRad Ltd., Cheshire, UK. E-mail : dongray@genrad.com or Derek.Dongray@GenRad.co.uk PSS : 234261600119::Dongray CompuServe : 70374,2745 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 1995 21:53:23 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: smtp_server failure Date: 6 Feb 1995 03:44:44 GMT Message-ID: <3h45vc$rvt@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <3grs49$n9r@hobbes.cc.uga.edu>, dlq@groucho.dev.uga.edu (David Quarterman) writes: =Things were running fine until this afternoon, then after adding one more =machine to the path list as local to the cluster, smtp_server began to =fail. It is not clear if something else happened or whether our changes =triggered the problem. UCX has not been shut down and restarted as we =have a number of users on the system. Then after doing a =mcp reset of smtp_server and router to pick up the new info in mxconfig =Smtp_server refuses to stay up. Immediately after starting it, it fails =with the following in the smtp_server.log. Have done a define/sys/exec =smtp_server_debug true with sufficient privs to make the definition in =the system table in exec mode. = =I remember seeing some way to find out how to get text for a numeric error =but the set message mx_msg and then help/message 10000094 comes back with =message not found. Those are hexadecimal numbers. First, you want to get the NAME of the error message, not just the hex value: $ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT F$MESSAGE(%X10000094) %SYSTEM-F-DUPLNAM, duplicate name Presumably, an "MX Server" process is already running. =Checked the netlib and mx executables and they are unchanged since they =were generated on 7 aug 1994. Changed the control files mx_config.mxcfg, =mx_startup_info.dat, mx_logicals.dat back to the versions before this =afternoon's changes and the problem presists. = =Have totally shut down mx and restarted it a couple of times. No good =luck from that tho. If the "MX Server" process is hung, you'll have to use the DCL STOP command to kill it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 05 Feb 1995 22:41:39 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Sun, 05 Feb 1995 21:40:00 MST From: Mark Tarka Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <0098B8C9.7DFEAF40.12@earth.oscs.montana.edu> Subject: Y/N case insensitive? I can ask my campus guru to configure "my" (thanks guys) list as case insensitive, can't I? Mark ichjsmt@earth.oscs.montana.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 22:41:25 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: Y/N case insensitive? Date: 7 Feb 1995 02:59:59 GMT Message-ID: <3h6nnf$9h7@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <0098B8C9.7DFEAF40.12@earth.oscs.montana.edu>, Mark Tarka writes: =I can ask my campus guru to configure "my" (thanks guys) list as =case insensitive, can't I? Yes: $ MCR MX_EXE:MCP HELP DEF LIST /CASE DEFINE LIST /CASE_SENSITIVE /CASE_SENSITIVE (default) /NOCASE_SENSITIVE Enables or disables case-sensitivity with regard to mailing list subscribers. By default, MX treats the left-hand side of subscriber addresses in a case-sensitive manner with regard to SIGNOFF and SET commands. If a list is defined /NOCASE_SENSITIVE, then the case of subscriber addresses will be ignored. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 07 Feb 1995 02:55:30 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 09:55:52 +0200 From: Leyrat@criuc.unicaen.fr Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098B9F9.757029E0.14@caen1.unicaen.fr> Subject: Eudora, Mime and IUPOP3 According to the following response, Eudora seems to be unable to correctly decode Mime messages when they have passed through an IUPOP3 server. Is it really true ? Can anyone indicate me how it is possible to receive Mime messages under Open-VMS, transmit them to a PC and decode them correctly ? Will MX be able to encode/decode Mime messages in the future ? Thank your for your response > >In a previous article, legay@criuc.unicaen.fr" wrote: >->I use Eudora for PC 1.4.3 over pathworks to connect to a POP server under >->VMS. It work correctly but I have a probleme with MIME decoding. My >->eudora is unable decoding is own mime encrypting after the travel on the >->Vax. > >Which POP3 server are you running? I've found that messages from Eudora with >mime attachments won't be decoded when going through the IUPOP3 server. Other >POP3 servers don't have this problem. > > >Carl Karcher Internet: KARCHER@WAISMAN.WISC.EDU >Waisman Center Bitnet: KARCHER@WISCMACC >University of Wisconsin-Madison PSTnet: (608) 263-5896 > > *********************************************************************** Jacques LEYRAT ! Tel: (33-)31-45-55-08 Centre de Ressources Informatiques (C.R.I.U.C) ! Universite de Caen ! Fax: (33-)31-44-58-54 14032 Caen Cedex ! FRANCE !e-mail: Leyrat@criuc.unicaen.fr *********************************************************************** ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 03:13:10 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: RE: smtp_server failure Date: 7 Feb 1995 08:42:27 GMT Message-ID: <3h7bpj$rm8@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <0098B655.1D6BD020.20@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com>, Virtual Bill writes: =>I remember seeing some way to find out how to get text for a numeric error =>but the set message mx_msg and then help/message 10000094 comes back with =>message not found. = = David, you've got a duplicate name some place, thats what the error = 10000094 breaks out. Use the commands = $ SET MESSAGE MX_EXE:MX_MSG = $ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT F$MESSAGE("%X10000094") = Check your config file for a duplicate node name. Duplicate *NODE* name? First of all, you don't need the SET MESSAGE command; the message is obviously a SYSTEM message. Experiment verifies this: $ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT F$MESSAGE(%X10000094) %SYSTEM-F-DUPLNAM, duplicate name Now, as to the meaning of DUPLNAM: $ HELP ERRORS DUPLNAM Errors DUPLNAM duplicate name Facility: SYSTEM, VMS System Services Explanation: A process name specified in a request to create a process duplicates the name of an existing process executing with the same group number. Process names must be unique within a group. User Action: Specify an alternative process name. Check whether the existing process with that name should be deleted and, if so, use the DCL command STOP to delete it. What we're talking about here is a PROCESS name, not a NODE name. Now, even if MX were to decide it wanted to use the current node's name in the process name so that each MX process thoughout the cluster had a unique name, this STILL wouldn't be a problem, because you can have processes in the same group with the same name, as long as they're not running on the same node. So node names have nothing to do with the problem. The DUPLNAM status means that he's trying to create a process with a particular name, and there's already a process running in the same group, on the same node, with the name that's being specified. It would appear that when he shut down MX, not all the MX processes exited. He'll have to find the one that's still running and use the STOP command to get rid of it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 07 Feb 1995 04:43:21 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 10:39:59 GMT From: "Andy Harper, KCL Systems Manager" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: udaa055@kcl.ac.uk Message-ID: <0098B9FF.9EFA7C83.132@bay.cc.kcl.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Eudora, Mime and IUPOP3 >According to the following response, Eudora seems to be unable to correctly >decode Mime messages when they have passed through an IUPOP3 server. Is it >really true ? Can anyone indicate me how it is possible to receive Mime >messages under Open-VMS, transmit them to a PC and decode them correctly ? >Will MX be able to encode/decode Mime messages in the future ? >Thank your for your response It works fine PROVIDFED that, when you compilwew IUPOP#, you select the option to remove to VMS MAIL style headers. Otherwise, the presdence of two sets of mail headers causes eudora, and other PC mail clients, to be unable to find the mime headers etc. Regards, Andy Harper Kings College London ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 06:34:20 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 13:29:37 EST From: Marian Bieniecki Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu CC: mbieniec@mvii.uni.lodz.pl Message-ID: <0098BA17.51E81C80.2715@mvii.uni.lodz.pl> Subject: personal name Hello, My problem concerns mailing list. I would like any new subscriber has to write his personal name following the SUBSCRIBE request. What is the most simple way of rejecting improper (I mean those without personal name) subscribing attempts? M.B. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Marian Bieniecki Solid State Physics Dpt, Univ of Lodz, Lodz, Pomorska 149/153, Poland tel. (4842)784176, (4842)785622 fax. (4842)790030 Email: mbieniec@mvii.uni.lodz.pl Bitnet: mbieniec@plunlo51.bitnet ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 09:23:21 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 10:22:18 -0500 (EST) From: Karan Graham (x6608) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu CC: GRAHAM@MINNIE.HOLLINS.EDU Message-ID: <950207102218.246000db@MINNIE.HOLLINS.EDU> desubscribe ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 11:28:12 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 11:25:09 CST From: "Tom Worlton: 708-252-8755/TGWorlton@anl.gov" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098BA05.EE03BF3C.6@anpns1.pns.anl.gov> Subject: Mailing list address storage I just set up my first mailing list and one of my users sent me the attached questions about it. I had a similar question because I manage a four node cluster and may send mail from any node. I don't really want the server software telling me I am not subscribed if I send it from the wrong node. I think that can probably be fixed with a cluster alias for mail, although I haven't done it. In the case of the user who sent me the attached message, I think he is coming from Unix systems and has several he works on. I am not aware of a "Reply-To:" field in VMS mail. One way I could see to do this would be to subscribe from each node, but put nomail on all but one. Is there another way to do this? Tom Worlton --------------------------- . . . I thought I would try to subscribe differently, hoping that your software would use the contents of the "Reply-To:" field as the name and address that appear when I send the message "review", but no such luck. Does it use the contents of the "From:" field? Przemek tells me this is not always a good idea because people sometimes send messages from a variety of computers but want their mail to come to a single computer regardless of where it was sent from. Also some people send messages from computers that do not accept incoming mail. The "Reply-To" field is supposed to take care of this. Any thoughts? (I will probably sign off and then subscribe again once this matter is satisfactorily sorted out.) . . . ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 14:17:44 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: desroches@aspen.uml.edu (Dick Desroches, ACC Systems Manager) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: LOCAL process crashing frequently Date: 7 Feb 95 14:54:03 -0500 Message-ID: <1995Feb7.145403.1@aspen.uml.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU The MX local process has been crashing. Below are the log files generated by the last few crashes. What's going on here - anybody know? Dick Desroches ============================================================================= ASPEN$ type mx_local_aspen.log;-1 %FLQ-F-NOSUCHENT, entry number does not exist %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows module name routine name line rel PC abs PC PROCESS PROCESS 209 00000102 00003833 MX_LOCAL MX_LOCAL 31 000003C6 00002BCA ASPEN$ type mx_local_aspen.log;-2 7-FEB-1995 14:18:51.08: MX Local (pid 2020371A) starting 7-FEB-1995 14:46:49.80: MX Local (pid 2020371A) exiting, status = 1C088024 ASPEN$ type mx_local_aspen.log;-3 7-FEB-1995 14:06:55.99: MX Local (pid 202038E8) starting 7-FEB-1995 14:07:31.10: MX Local (pid 202038E8) exiting, status = 1C088024 ASPEN$ type mx_local_aspen.log;-4 6-FEB-1995 11:05:56.31: MX Local (pid 20202976) starting %MRGATE-I-RETRY, MRGATE file resource locked: Retrying... %MRGATE-I-RETRY, MRGATE file resource locked: Retrying... %MRGATE-I-RETRY, MRGATE file resource locked: Retrying... %MRGATE-I-RETRY, MRGATE file resource locked: Retrying... 6-FEB-1995 17:46:28.79: MX Local (pid 20202976) exiting, status = 10018294 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 10:58:19 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: elcan@philtr.phys.lsu.edu (philip elcan) Subject: Entries not deleted, again Date: 8 Feb 1995 16:41:04 GMT Message-ID: <3has70$2gp7@te6000.otc.lsu.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU About a month ago I posted about a problem I was having with mail entries/files not being deleted from the queue. When I do $ mcp queue show/all it reports there are no entries. But if I get a directory of the queue there are lots of files in there. So I pick a number from this directory, and I do a $ mcp queue show # and it lists the message as cancelled or finished. When I do a $ mcp queue purge nothing is deleted. It claims there are no entries. I've fixed this twice by shutting down MX, doing a $ mcp queue synch/reset $ mcp queue purge and nothing happens. So, I deleted the files and created a new queue file, starting all over. Then the problem came back in a few weeks. But now I am even losing outgoing mail. Sometimes out-bound mail works sometimes it doesn't. Most of the time the message info stays in the queue, but if the mail is lost nothing is logged in the MX_ROOT:[SMTP]MX_SMTP_ACC.DAT. I am currently running VMS 6.1 (AXP and VAX), UCX 3.1, and MX 4.1. Has anyone seen any of these problems? HELP! Philip Elcan elcan@phgrav.phys.lsu.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 13:34:37 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 08 Feb 95 17:13:01 -0800 From: "Ian Miller - Softel Systems" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <24846180205991/85146@SCOTS> To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Subject: from address [This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII] I would like mail sent from any node node in my cluster to appear have come from user@softel.co.uk At present mail sent via SMTP appears to come from user@node.softel.co.uk where node is set my mx_vmsmail_localhost I have a feeling that the answer is in the manual somewhere but I can't seem to find it. (MX 4.1, UCX 3.1) What is the best why to mangle from addresses like mx%"'psi%dteaddr::user'@localnode" into something more friendly like mx%"user@dteaddr.psi" (These addreses result from mail coming in from outside via PSI MAIL. I already have a rewrite rule that will take the above address, change it to psi%dteaddr::user and give it to mx local to send out via PSI MAIL.) Ian Miller, Softel Systems softels00001@partners.new.mts.doc.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 15:41:30 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 16:38:13 EST From: smcneilly@fred.bridgew.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098BAFA.D4C9B940.22@fred.bridgew.edu> Subject: RE: from address Ian Miller writes: >I would like mail sent from any node node in my cluster to appear have come from > > user@softel.co.uk > >At present mail sent via SMTP appears to come from > > user@node.softel.co.uk > >where node is set my mx_vmsmail_localhost > Why not set mx_vmsmail_localhost to "@softel.co.uk" on all your nodes? This will make the reply-to address on outgoing mail from any node look like "user@softel.co.uk", which probably will accomplish what you want. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Mc Neilly email: smcneilly@bridgew.edu Assistant Director Phone: 508-697-1236 Information Services Bridgewater State College Bridgewater, MA 02325 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 15:42:01 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 15:38:58 CST From: "Tom Worlton: 708-252-8755/TGWorlton@anl.gov" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098BAF2.8DCF4FBC.5@anpns1.pns.anl.gov> Subject: RE: from address Subj: from address >Ian Miller, Softel Systems writes: >I would like mail sent from any node node in my cluster to appear have come from > > user@softel.co.uk > >At present mail sent via SMTP appears to come from > > user@node.softel.co.uk > >where node is set my mx_vmsmail_localhost > >I have a feeling that the answer is in the manual somewhere but I can't >seem to find it. > >(MX 4.1, UCX 3.1) > >What is the best why to mangle from addresses like > >mx%"'psi%dteaddr::user'@localnode" > >into something more friendly like > >mx%"user@dteaddr.psi" > >(These addreses result from mail coming in from outside via PSI MAIL. >I already have a rewrite rule that will take the above address, change it to > > psi%dteaddr::user > >and give it to mx local to send out via PSI MAIL.) > This is similar to a problem I have with a mailing list and I am now investigating what can be done. One of my first subscribers told me we should be using the "Reply-To:" address. I thought there was no way of setting that from VMS, but found out today that our TCP/IP software, Multinet, allows you to define a logical, MULTINET_SMTP_REPLY_TO, which will cause the desired Reply-To address to be added to your message. This feature was added in Multinet 3.3. There is also a logical, MULTINET_SMTP_FROM_HOST, which can be used. What you can do may depend on what TCP/IP software you are using. If you have Multinet, see the version 3.3 release notes. This will be an important feature for us because we are a large laboratory that uses a division name and node name in our fully specified mail address, but we can define a simpler mail alias and have mail routed to us. The problem I now see is that Multinet can change the "From" and "Reply-To:" fields for outgoing mail like I want, but MX cannot. MX does not even create the Reply-To: field when you send out mail through it. If you define the MULTINET_SMTP_REPLY_TO logical and send mail through SMTP%, Multinet will set both the From field and the Reply-To fields to the value specified by the logical. We really need that capability in MX. Tom Worlton tgworlton@anl.gov ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 17:05:04 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 14:59:44 PST From: "John F. Sandhoff" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: tgworlton@anl.gov, syssand@CCVAX.CCS.CSUS.EDU Message-ID: <0098BAED.13017DA0.2868@CCVAX.CCS.CSUS.EDU> Subject: RE: from address > The problem I now see is that Multinet can change the "From" and > "Reply-To:" fields for outgoing mail like I want, but MX cannot. Excuse me? Please see THIS MESSAGE, which was sent with MX. I have this in my login.com: $ DEFINE MX_REPLY_TO "sandhoff@csus.edu" -- John John F. Sandhoff, University Network Support California State University, Sacramento - USA sandhoff@csus.edu "Just an invisible cog in a huge wheel" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 17:39:42 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 17:35:53 CST From: Tom Worlton Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098BB02.E353737C.6@anpns1.pns.anl.gov> Subject: Mailing list address storage I am just learning what is going on with MX and mailing lists. I now understand that there is a way to set the reply-to argument to the desired value. Apparently the problem with the mailing list software is that this address is not stored in the mailing list. MX does transfer the Reply-To address to the From: field, but it stores the Return-Path field in the mailing list. If there is a way around this, please let me know. I originally thought you could not create a Reply-To field from VMS. I then discovered that in Multinet, and then was told of the logical in MX to do that. I still don't know how to get that value stored as the address in a mailing list. I attach a message from someone commenting on the list I had set up explaining what he thinks should happen. Tom Worlton ------------------------------------------------------------- From: MX%"przemek@rrdjazz.nist.gov" 7-FEB-1995 17:25:26.00 To: MX%"worlton@anpns1.pns.anl.gov" CC: Subj: Re: Reply-To Hi, I don't understand very well how the VMS-Internet mail gateway works, so please bear with me. The reason I suggested using Reply-to: is because the From: address is not always the one that you want to put down on the mailing list (I am speaking from experience---I helped manage a 3500-name address list). The reason may be a personal preference, such as the From field containing the username (ax1234@vax.umich.edu) instead of a full name (John.Doe@umich.edu), but, just as often, people will have bogus From: address due to misconfiguration of their mail gateways, over which they have no control. One solution to that is to use the Reply-To: address for the mailing list purpose. Since the Reply-To address can be set to an arbitrary value by the sender . . ., it can be used in this manner. I stress that this simply means that the mailing list software collects the address for the mailing list from Reply-to field rather than using the From field, if the former exists. Another solution is used by some mailing list processors (e.g. Majordomo) where you can simply specify the address onto which you want to receive the mailings: subscribe neutron-news przemek@nist.gov In any case, this is just a convenience issue; with the size of our list we probably could just wing it and decide to correct problems manually (If someone doesn't like the address that they got, you can always change it for them by hand). Greetings przemek ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 03:35:39 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 10:33:52 +0100 From: "GWDGV1::MOELLER" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Defense against HUGE incoming mails? When I came in my office today, it was just the right moment to observe a HUGE (incoming) E-Mail being processed, which just barely fit into MX's spool area (and of course would have vastly exceeded the target user's disk space, if I hadn't done something about it). I wonder if something could be done about this [potential] problem. I do know that the SMTP protocol doesn't let you know beforehand how large an incoming mail will be, nor does it have a clearcut method for rejecting a mail once for all (the perspective of having the remote mailer retrying for a week, possibly tying up the IP-link for most of that time isn't too attractive). Nonetheless, I feel like the SMTP receiver should recognize such a problem and reject mails some time _before_ it notices that it can't proceed due to lack of disk space. Alternatively, a settable bound on message size (to be applied very carefully!) could serve to avoid the problem. To me, it happened for the first time. I wonder how often such a problem occurs, and if others also see a need to do something about it? BTW, it all appears that in this case, it was just an innocent (remote) MAC user telling his machine to send some picture file. Once it has happened, the right "user training" usually will usually keep such a problem from occuring again, but there are too many users around ... Wolfgang J. Moeller, Tel. +49 551 201516 or -510, GWDG, D-37077 Goettingen, F.R.Germany PSI%(0262)45050859008::MOELLER Disclaimer: No claim intended! | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 06:16:02 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 12:11:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Demaine Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII SUBSCRIBE ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 08:08:50 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 09:02:14 EST From: "Brian Tillman" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: uunet!WKUVX1.WKU.EDU!mx-list@esseye.si.com CC: worlton@anpns1.pns.anl.gov Message-ID: <0098BB84.4C2CC7A0.131@swdev.si.com> Subject: RE: Mailing list address storage Tom Worlton (worlton@anpns1.pns.anl.gov) writes: >I originally thought you could not create a Reply-To field from VMS. I then >discovered that in Multinet, and then was told of the logical in MX to do >that. I still don't know how to get that value stored as the address in a >mailing list. Perhaps the /REPLY_TO qualifier on the DEFINE LIST command is what you want. The /REPLY_TO qualifier defaults to /REPLY_TO=LIST, which means the list name comes appears as in the Reply-To header. However, if you specify /REPLY_TO=SENDER when you create the list, the Reply-To header will reflect the address of the person who posted the message. Is this what you need? -- Brian tillman_brian@si.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 08:08:55 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 09:05:12 EST From: "Brian Tillman" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: uunet!WKUVX1.WKU.EDU!mx-list@esseye.si.com CC: worlton@anpns1.pns.anl.gov Message-ID: <0098BB84.B5E0B760.149@swdev.si.com> Subject: RE: Mailing list address storage I wrote: >The /REPLY_TO qualifier defaults to /REPLY_TO=LIST, which means the list name >comes appears as in the Reply-To header. Oops. I lied. The default is /REPLY_TO=SENDER. Sorry for the erroneous info. This qualifier may still be what Tom wants, though. -- Brian ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 08:42:44 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: <9502091438.AA24530@us4rmc.pko.dec.com> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 09:38:15 EST X-MX-Warning: Warning -- Invalid "To" header. To: us4rmc::"mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu"@isvnet.enet.dec.com Subject: RE: from address 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> Setting mx_vmsmail_localhost to softel.co.uk works just fine. I knew that it would be something simple. About my second question. I guess I need to write a name conversionimage and perform the conversion in the full_convert routine - is this correct ? Ian Miller, Softel Systems softels00001@partners.new.mts.dec.com PSImail 234273400398::IAN ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 08:57:09 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: ccapc@cyber.sell.com (Consumer Credit Advocates) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: GUARANTEED CREDIT REPAIR BY LAW FIRM Date: 9 Feb 1995 06:00:29 -0500 Message-ID: <3hcskd$r94@panix.com> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Consumer Credit Advocates, PC 11 Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 2101 New York, NY 10001 (212) 629-5261 (telephone) (212) 629-4762 (fax) E-MAIL: ccapc@cyber.sell.com Our LAW FIRM offers direct guaranteed effective credit restoration services by experienced attorneys. THIS IS NOT A DO-IT-YOURSELF KIT. What can we do? We have successfully facilitated the removal of Late Payments, Charge-offs, Foreclosures, Repossessions, Collection Accounts, Loan Defaults, Tax Liens, Judgments and Bankruptcies from our clients' credit reports. WE GUARANTEE THAT YOUR CREDIT CAN BE RESTORED!!! Who needs our services? Anyone who has experienced the inconvenience and embarrassment of being turned down for a credit card, a lease or a purchase of an automobile. Anyone who is unable to buy the house of their dreams due to denial of a mortgage application or who has to pay thousands of dollars more in mortgage interest than someone with good credit. Anyone who has been turned down for a job or promotion due to derogatory credit items on a credit report. Anyone in business who has lost a deal because a person or firm wanted to see his/her credit report before doing business. Anyone who has been unable to establish credit. THE FOUR GREAT MYTHS OF CREDIT: Myth #1: It is illegal or immoral to have your credit report cleared. Fact: It is not illegal nor immoral. In fact, that is what the Fair Credit Reporting Act is all about. The act was enacted by Congress in 1971. One of its purposes as to give consumers the protection of the law and to help guard against any unwarranted invasion of a consumer's right to privacy. Myth #2: The information on a credit report cannot be changed. Fact: Actually, the opposite is true under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Federal and State laws require that items be removed if they are not 100% accurate or cannot be verified in a timely manner. Myth #3: It is impossible to get a bankruptcy off a credit report. Fact: Bankruptcies can come off credit reports like any other derogatory item. The nature of the derogatory item has nothing to do with its removal under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Myth #4: Credit Reporting Agencies are empowered with some kind of governmental authority. Fact: Absolutely Not!! They are simply large corporations whose primary goal is to make a profit like any other business. If you have ever applied for or received credit, a file exists in one or more of the credit bureaus. These companies collect, store and distribute as much credit information as they can find, retaining negative information on a credit report for 7 to 10 years. This information is evaluated by potential creditors to determine your credit worthiness. Credit reporting agencies are in business to protect the interests of the creditors. the LAW FIRM's goal is to help and protect the individual consumer from inaccurate credit reporting. The president of our LAW FIRM has been practicing consumer law since 1984. The staff of our firm has successfully processed, disputed and challenged thousands of client credit reports. Our legal fee is based o the number of negative items that appear on a client's credit reports, issued b the three national credit bureaus. Our retainer agreement offers a MONEY BACK GUARANTEE stating that if any negative item is not deleted, upgraded or corrected from a client's credit file, it will give the client a full refund for that item or continue to process the client's file at no additional fee until that item is corrected, upgraded or deleted. THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE TO LOSE IS YOUR BAD CREDIT!! PLEASE CONTACT THE LAW FIRM AND LEAVE YOUR FULL NAME, MAILING ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER SO WE MAY FORWARD FURTHER INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU ABOUT OUR SERVICE. Consumer Credit Advocates, PC 11 Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 2101 New York, NY 10001 (212) 629-5261 (telephone) (212) 629-4762 (fax) E-MAIL: ccapc@cyber.sell.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 14:09:29 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 13:52:52 EST From: "Brian Tillman" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: uunet!WKUVX1.WKU.EDU!mx-list@esseye.si.com Message-ID: <0098BBAC.E5FDBC40.50@swdev.si.com> Subject: RE: GUARANTEED CREDIT REPAIR BY LAW FIRM >Consumer Credit Advocates, PC >11 Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 2101 >New York, NY 10001 >(212) 629-5261 (telephone) (212) 629-4762 (fax) >E-MAIL: ccapc@cyber.sell.com > >Our LAW FIRM offers direct guaranteed effective credit >restoration services by experienced attorneys. THIS IS >NOT A DO-IT-YOURSELF KIT. Please join me in swamping this firm with complaints so that they learn to properly post their ads. -- Brian ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 14:18:42 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 14:18:23 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098BBB0.7686CB82.5@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Mailing list address storage Tom Worlton writes: > >I am just learning what is going on with MX and mailing lists. I now >understand that there is a way to set the reply-to argument to the desired >value. Apparently the problem with the mailing list software is that this >address is not stored in the mailing list. MX does transfer the Reply-To >address to the From: field, but it stores the Return-Path field in the mailing >list. If there is a way around this, please let me know. > Actually, it uses the original From: line. That's done as a security measure, weak though it is. That's to keep me from subscribing you to a list by just defining MX_REPLY_TO. >I originally thought you could not create a Reply-To field from VMS. I then >discovered that in Multinet, and then was told of the logical in MX to do >that. I still don't know how to get that value stored as the address in a >mailing list. > >I attach a message from someone commenting on the list I had set up explaining >what he thinks should happen. > His "solutions" make sense, but they would let anybody do anything they want with lists. MX is a little more security concious (surprise!) than UNIX list processors.... The correct way to handle this is for the list owner to add the user with the user's desired address. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 14:57:18 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 14:55:31 -0600 (CST) From: "H.A. Kippenhan Jr." Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <950209145531.2e00468@fndcd.fnal.gov> Subject: RE: GUARANTEED CREDIT REPAIR BY LAW FIRM Hi Brian: | | From: SMTP%"MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU" 9-FEB-1995 14:14:52.74 | Subj: RE: GUARANTEED CREDIT REPAIR BY LAW FIRM | | >Consumer Credit Advocates, PC | >11 Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 2101 | >New York, NY 10001 | >(212) 629-5261 (telephone) (212) 629-4762 (fax) | >E-MAIL: ccapc@cyber.sell.com | > | >Our LAW FIRM offers direct guaranteed effective credit | >restoration services by experienced attorneys. THIS IS | >NOT A DO-IT-YOURSELF KIT. | | | | Please join me in swamping this firm with complaints so that they learn to | properly post their ads. | -- | Brian | Any one care to guess whether their FAX number burns down? Regards - Kipp - \|/ o o +----------------------------------+------------------------+----m--~--m----+ | H.A. Kippenhan Jr. | Internet: Kippenhan@FNAL.GOV | | HEP Network Resource Center | HEPnet/NSI DECnet: FNDCD::KIPPENHAN | | Fermi National Accelerator Lab. | BITnet: Kippenhan@FNDCD.BITNET | | P.O. Box 500 MS: FCC-3E/368 | Telephone: (708) 840-8068 | | Batavia, Illinois 60510 | FAX: (708) 840-8463 | +----------------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | All opinions & ideas expressed are mine alone, and may not necessarily | | reflect those of Fermilab, Univ. Research Assoc., or the Dept. of Energy | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 15:50:22 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 15:42:39 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Stacks Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: GUARANTEED CREDIT REPAIR BY LAW FIRM To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098BBBC.3BF0C3E0.5@adpce.lrk.ar.us> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Brian Tillman writes: >>Our LAW FIRM offers direct guaranteed effective credit [snip] > >Please join me in swamping this firm with complaints so that they learn to >properly post their ads. >-- >Brian Been there, am doing that, for every post I get from them I send 5 replies... :-) I've gotten 6 posts from them so far... :-( -- Rick ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 16:05:02 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: elcan@philtr.phys.lsu.edu (philip elcan) Subject: More info about problem Date: 9 Feb 1995 18:44:18 GMT Message-ID: <3hdnq2$2f8o@te6000.otc.lsu.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU I posted earlier this week about a problem I have been having with MX v4.1 I now have more information that might make things more obvious to someone less ignorant about the mailer than myself. The following are the results of the MX_ROUTER_LOG.LOG files that were the result of two attempts to mail the same message. The first one didn't go out, but the second did. There is a significant and obvious difference between the two. Please let me know if this screams the problem out to you. ---------------- MX_ROUTER_LOG.LOG;100 8-FEB-1995 17:00:54.22 %PROCESS, Processing entry number 1 8-FEB-1995 17:00:54.58 %PROCESS, Status from READ_INFO was 00000001 8-FEB-1995 17:00:54.58 %PROCESS, Message originated in VMS Mail. 8-FEB-1995 17:00:54.58 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on envelope addresses. 8-FEB-1995 17:00:54.58 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on message headers. 8-FEB-1995 17:01:00.32 %PROCESS, Updating the QENT source address. 8-FEB-1995 17:01:00.42 %PROCESS, Finished VMSmail-origin preprocessing. 8-FEB-1995 17:01:00.42 %PROCESS, Marking this entry as finished. ---------------- MX_ROUTER_LOG.LOG;101 8-FEB-1995 17:05:17.77 %PROCESS, Processing entry number 60 8-FEB-1995 17:05:17.96 %PROCESS, Status from READ_INFO was 00000001 8-FEB-1995 17:05:17.96 %PROCESS, Message originated in VMS Mail. 8-FEB-1995 17:05:17.97 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on envelope addresses. 8-FEB-1995 17:05:17.97 %PROCESS, Processing address: 8-FEB-1995 17:05:17.97 %PROCESS, ... address now reads: 8-FEB-1995 17:05:17.97 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on message headers. 8-FEB-1995 17:05:20.12 %PROCESS, Updating the QENT source address. 8-FEB-1995 17:05:20.21 %PROCESS, Finished VMSmail-origin preprocessing. 8-FEB-1995 17:05:20.22 %PROCESS, Recipient #0: 8-FEB-1995 17:05:20.22 %REWRITE, No rewrite rules matched 8-FEB-1995 17:05:20.22 %FINDPATH, Site-spec expand on wave.st.usm.edu err=00000000 8-FEB-1995 17:05:20.22 %FINDPATH, domain name WAVE.ST.USM.EDU matched path pattern * 8-FEB-1995 17:05:20.22 %PROCESS, Rewrote as - next hop wave.st.usm.edu, path 2 8-FEB-1995 17:05:20.61 %PROCESS, Adding to SMTP path: . 8-FEB-1995 17:05:21.18 %PROCESS, Path SMTP gets 1 rcpts, entry number 7 ----------------- Thanks, Philip Elcan elcan@phgrav.phys.lsu.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 16:24:18 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 16:22:11 -0600 (CST) From: METZE@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: METZE@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu Message-ID: <950209162211.19a@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu> Subject: RE: GUARANTEED CREDIT REPAIR BY LAW FIRM > From: "Brian Tillman" > >Consumer Credit Advocates, PC > >11 Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 2101 > >New York, NY 10001 > >(212) 629-5261 (telephone) (212) 629-4762 (fax) > >E-MAIL: ccapc@cyber.sell.com > > > >Our LAW FIRM offers direct guaranteed effective credit > >restoration services by experienced attorneys. THIS IS > >NOT A DO-IT-YOURSELF KIT. > > > > Please join me in swamping this firm with complaints so that they learn to > properly post their ads. > -- > Brian Someone on another list made a very good suggestion: Contact their network provider, PSI, as well. You can reach PSI at noc@psi.com Ginny ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 18:20:50 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: rick@DFWVX1.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM Subject: Re: Eudora, Mime and IUPOP3 Date: 9 Feb 1995 22:30:43 GMT Message-ID: <3he52j$su8@sndsu1.sedalia.sinet.slb.com> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU >> >>In a previous article, legay@criuc.unicaen.fr" wrote: >>->I use Eudora for PC 1.4.3 over pathworks to connect to a POP server under >>->VMS. It work correctly but I have a probleme with MIME decoding. My >>->eudora is unable decoding is own mime encrypting after the travel on the >>->Vax. >> We've found the same thing using the multinet pop. If you switch to binhex encoding in Eudora everything seems to work - just has a problem when you go to mime. Rick Caldwell rick@dallas.geoquest.slb.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 20:36:11 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: rick@DFWVX1.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM Subject: Eudora, Mailing Lists via local decnet Date: 10 Feb 1995 00:43:44 GMT Message-ID: <3hecs0$5v2@sndsu1.sedalia.sinet.slb.com> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU (Long Posting) Hi, We are having a problem with email subject and sender addresses not showing up when we receive mail with Eudora from a mx list. The mail is delivered to users via a local decnet address. We are using Multinet on one of the cluster nodes for POP serving. All the mx stuff is currently occuring via decnet - I have no mx smtp agents running as we've just recently installed multinet and all the mailing lists we set up using decnet only. Sending directly to the Vax mail account via decnet works ok. mailing list contents: rick1@dfwdsr harperj@dfwdsr dfwdsr is defined as a local node in mx (it's the cluster alias) The message text as received in Eudora and then forwarded back to the vax to compose this message: Return-Path: Received: from ibmpc15 by dfwftp.dallas.geoquest.slb.com with SMTP; Thu, 9 Feb 1995 14:33:59 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rick1@dallas.geoquest.slb.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: rick From: rick@dallas.geoquest.slb.com (Rick Caldwell) Subject: >X-ListName: TESTLIST@DFWDSR <----- from here down what >Warnings-To: <> was seen on the pc >Errors-To: owner-testlist@DFWDSR > >msg sent to testlist > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >decnet dfwvx1::rick \\|// -,-/| >internet rick@dallas.geoquest.slb.com -O o- $o.O; >-----------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo-------oOO =(---)= ))0-- > Versions: mx version 4.1 multinet 3.3c eudora 2.0.3 Debug files: MX_LOCAL_LOG.LOG 9-FEB-1995 17:40:50.82 Processing queue entry number 4 9-FEB-1995 17:40:51.21 Checking local name: RICK1 9-FEB-1995 17:40:51.58 LOCAL_USER: User RICK1 definitely local. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:51.58 This is a regular delivery. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:51.58 Checking local name: HARPERJ 9-FEB-1995 17:40:51.80 LOCAL_USER: User HARPERJ definitely local. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:51.80 This is a regular delivery. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:52.32 DELIVER: mime_headers = 0 9-FEB-1995 17:40:52.32 DELIVER: fdlstr = "" 9-FEB-1995 17:40:52.33 DELIVER: Using MX%"rick@DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM" as VMS MAIL From address. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:52.33 DELIVER: Using MX%"testlist@DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM" as VMS MAIL To address. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:52.33 DELIVER: Using as VMS MAIL CC address. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:52.33 DELIVER: Using "list test msg" as subject. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:52.68 DELIVER: Delivering to RICK1 9-FEB-1995 17:40:54.76 DELIVER: Status=00000001 from MAIL$ routines 9-FEB-1995 17:40:54.76 DELIVER: Delivering to HARPERJ 9-FEB-1995 17:40:55.22 DELIVER: Status=00000001 from MAIL$ routines 9-FEB-1995 17:40:55.58 All done with this entry. MX_ROUTER_LOG.LOG 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.65 %PROCESS, Processing entry number 3 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.95 %PROCESS, Status from READ_INFO was 00000001 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.95 %PROCESS, Recipient #0: 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.95 %PROCESS, Recipient #1: 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.95 %REWRITE, No rewrite rules matched 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.96 %FINDPATH, Site-spec expand on dfwdsr returned DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.96 %FINDPATH, domain name DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM matched path pattern DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.96 %PROCESS, Rewrote as - next hop dfwdsr, path 1 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.96 %FINDALIAS, no alias found for rick1 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.96 %PROCESS, no alias found for rick1 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.96 %PROCESS, this is just a local delivery 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.96 %REWRITE, No rewrite rules matched 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.97 %FINDPATH, Site-spec expand on dfwdsr returned DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.97 %FINDPATH, domain name DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM matched path pattern DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.97 %PROCESS, Rewrote as - next hop dfwdsr, path 1 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.97 %FINDALIAS, no alias found for harperj 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.97 %PROCESS, no alias found for harperj 9-FEB-1995 17:40:48.97 %PROCESS, this is just a local delivery 9-FEB-1995 17:40:49.60 %PROCESS, Adding to LOCAL path: rick1. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:49.60 %PROCESS, Adding to LOCAL path: harperj. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:50.23 %PROCESS, Path LOCAL gets 2 rcpts, entry number 4 2nd MX_ROUTER_LOG.LOG 9-FEB-1995 17:40:38.75 %PROCESS, Processing entry number 1 9-FEB-1995 17:40:39.19 %PROCESS, Status from READ_INFO was 00000001 9-FEB-1995 17:40:39.19 %PROCESS, Message originated in VMS Mail. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:39.19 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on envelope addresses. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:39.19 %PROCESS, Processing address: 9-FEB-1995 17:40:39.21 %PROCESS, ... expanded DFWDSR to DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM 9-FEB-1995 17:40:39.21 %PROCESS, ... address now reads: 9-FEB-1995 17:40:39.21 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on message headers. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:39.44 %PROCESS, ... for expanded DFWDSR to DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM 9-FEB-1995 17:40:39.45 %PROCESS, ... for testlist@DFWDSR expanded DFWDSR to DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM 9-FEB-1995 17:40:41.88 %PROCESS, Updating the QENT source address. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:42.09 %PROCESS, Finished VMSmail-origin preprocessing. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:42.09 %PROCESS, Recipient #0: 9-FEB-1995 17:40:42.09 %REWRITE, No rewrite rules matched 9-FEB-1995 17:40:42.10 %FINDPATH, Site-spec expand on DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM err=00000000 9-FEB-1995 17:40:42.10 %FINDPATH, domain name DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM matched path pattern DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM 9-FEB-1995 17:40:42.10 %PROCESS, Rewrote as - next hop DFWFTP.DALLAS.GEOQUEST.SLB.COM, path 1 9-FEB-1995 17:40:42.10 %FINDALIAS, no alias found for testlist 9-FEB-1995 17:40:42.10 %PROCESS, no alias found for testlist 9-FEB-1995 17:40:42.10 %PROCESS, this is an MList or File req 9-FEB-1995 17:40:42.82 %PROCESS, Adding to MLF path: testlist. 9-FEB-1995 17:40:43.54 %PROCESS, Path MLF gets 1 rcpts, entry number 2 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 15:23:56 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 15:23:59 CST From: Bob Christenson Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-LIST@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098BC82.CA973FE0.4@fcseng.frco.com> Subject: RE: GUARANTEED CREDIT REPAIR BY LAWFIRM Received the following from PSI after posting a complaint about the ad. Large collective cheer should be heard around the net! } From: PSI NISC } To: Bob Christenson } Subject: nisc-01467 (ticket update) RE: GUARANTEED CREDIT REPAIR BY LAW } FIRM } } Ticket #nisc-01467 02/10/95-16:03:57 libby } SUBJECT: RE: GUARANTEED CREDIT REPAIR BY LAW FIRM } Posted by: Cole G. Libby } ---------- } } In reply to your question about Canter and Siegal: } } Earlier today, PSI terminated all Internet services to } Canter & Siegel and Cybersell as a result of continuing } violations of the PSI Internet service agreement regarding } postings to usenet news groups. } } Cole Libby } Manager, PSI Customer Support ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ // Bob Christenson, Sr. Sys Analyst _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // Fisher Controls Int., Inc. _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // R.A. Engel Technical Center _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ // Marshalltown, IA 50158 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // Voice Phone : (515) 754-3854 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // FAX Phone : (515) 754-2831 _/ _/. _/ _/. _/_/_/_/_/. // Inet Address: rachri1@fcseng.frco.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 15:36:56 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: SYSTEM@UHAVAX.HARTFORD.EDU (SYSTEM MANAGER) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Problems receiving from lists (not receiving) Date: 11 Feb 1995 20:22:52 GMT Message-ID: <3hj6as$287@ipgate.hartford.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Hi - We suddenly stopped receiving mail from mailing lists the other day. It appears that personal one-to-one mail is coming through from the Internet - just not the listserved-stuff. I have been in contact with our internet provider to see if any DNS problems they had recently could be contributing to our problems. I have not knowingly made any changes to our MX configuration, etc. It just stopped working. We are running MX 4.1 on VMS 5.5-2 and UCX 3.1. Had been running very well up to now. Don't see any errors in the accounting or log files. Has anyone else had this happen? Thanks in advance! Dave Kelley University of Hartford kelley@uhavax.hartford.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 22:23:00 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: SYSTEM@UHAVAX.HARTFORD.EDU (SYSTEM MANAGER) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Local processing error Date: 11 Feb 1995 20:26:56 GMT Message-ID: <3hj6ig$287@ipgate.hartford.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU I don't see the following error in the MX manuals. It only appears to happen to me when I'm trying to send a message to our internet provider. The following is a MCP> QUE SHOW/FULL output. Does anyone know what could be happening here? I don't see any errors in the accounting or log files. Thanks in advance. Dave Kelley University of Hartford kelley@uhavax.hartford.edu OUTPUT FROM MCP QUE SHOW/FULL COMMAND: ***************************************************************************** Entry: 24, Origin: [Local] Status: IN-PROGRESS, size: 2972 bytes Created: 11-FEB-1995 15:01:17.44, expires 13-MAR-1995 15:01:17.44 Last modified 11-FEB-1995 15:15:23.49 SMTP entry #5, status: READY, size: 2972 bytes, waiting for retry until 11-FEB-1995 15:46:20.13 Created: 11-FEB-1995 15:15:22.72, expires 13-MAR-1995 15:01:17.44 Last modified 11-FEB-1995 15:16:20.14 Recipient #1: , Route=nic.near.net Error count=1 Last error: %MX_SMTP-W-LOCAL_ERROR, action aborted: local processing error ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 17:37:17 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: wayne@tachyon.com Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: parse errors in the file server portion of MLF Message-ID: <1995Feb12.120307.1@tachyon.com> Date: 12 Feb 95 12:03:07 CST To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU I have been having a problem with the way the file server portion of MLF parses commands. If you are asking for an individual file with the package.number notation, and you use a space instead of period beween package and number, the number portion is not seen. The result is that the entire package is sent, rather than an individual file. Admittedly, this is an error on the part of the user, but there are a lot of idiots out there, and parsers expecting input from the general public should be as bulletproof as possible. This has happened to my server more than once. Last time, it occurred with a very large package, wasting a great deal of mail bandwidth. It would be much better for the MLF parser to either treat the blank as a period and send the individual file or to flag a syntax error and abort the command. This should be easy to do, since the sendme command has only one parameter. The presence of a second parameter should be a syntax error. The following log illustrates this behavior (the command *should* have been "sendme FILESERV_TOOLS.05-OF-12"): ============================================================================ Sender: FILESERV-Mgr@tachyon.com Errors-To: FILESERV-Mgr@tachyon.com Warnings-To: <> From: FILESERV-Mgr@tachyon.com Reply-To: FILESERV@tachyon.com Subject: File server FILESERV: transaction log To: wayne@tachyon.com Command: sendme FILESERV_TOOLS 05-OF-12 File FILESERV_TOOLS.01-OF-12 has been sent. File FILESERV_TOOLS.02-OF-12 has been sent. File FILESERV_TOOLS.03-OF-12 has been sent. File FILESERV_TOOLS.04-OF-12 has been sent. File FILESERV_TOOLS.05-OF-12 has been sent. File FILESERV_TOOLS.06-OF-12 has been sent. File FILESERV_TOOLS.07-OF-12 has been sent. File FILESERV_TOOLS.08-OF-12 has been sent. File FILESERV_TOOLS.09-OF-12 has been sent. File FILESERV_TOOLS.10-OF-12 has been sent. File FILESERV_TOOLS.11-OF-12 has been sent. File FILESERV_TOOLS.12-OF-12 has been sent. File FILESERV_TOOLS.README has been sent. ---------- Command: quit Wayne -- ======================================================================== Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting |wayne@tachyon.com >>mail to pgpkey@tachyon.com for pgp key |(214)-553-9760 Key fingerprint = 77 A5 C1 56 9C ED F1 8E 89 F9 27 3C 86 79 F7 1B ======================================================================== Larry:"I'll do it when I'm ready!" Moe(with menace):"Are ya ready?" L:"Yeah." ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 19:56:42 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 19:54:55 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098BE3A.F8C5EDCB.10@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Problems receiving from lists (not receiving) SYSTEM@UHAVAX.HARTFORD.EDU (SYSTEM MANAGER) writes: > >We suddenly stopped receiving mail from mailing lists the other day. It >appears that personal one-to-one mail is coming through from the Internet - >just not the listserved-stuff. I have been in contact with our internet >provider to see if any DNS problems they had recently could be contributing >to our problems. > Is your MX MLF process still running? Sounds like it's not.... Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 19:56:52 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 19:55:43 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098BE3B.1592A291.13@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Local processing error SYSTEM@UHAVAX.HARTFORD.EDU (SYSTEM MANAGER) writes: > >I don't see the following error in the MX manuals. It only appears to happen >to me when I'm trying to send a message to our internet provider. The >following is a MCP> QUE SHOW/FULL output. Does anyone know what could >be happening here? I don't see any errors in the accounting or log files. [...] > Last error: %MX_SMTP-W-LOCAL_ERROR, action aborted: local processing error That's coming from the remote system; the remote system is telling MX that it has a local (to the remote system) processing error. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 22:24:10 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: cts@dragon.com (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: GUARANTEED CREDIT REPAIR BY LAW FIRM Message-ID: <1995Feb12.160829.1133@dragon> Date: 12 Feb 95 16:08:29 EST To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU >>Please join me in swamping this firm with complaints so that they learn to >>properly post their ads. > > Been there, am doing that, for every post I get from them I send 5 > replies... :-) I've gotten 6 posts from them so far... :-( > So far, I've found several hundred. Each gets sent to the requested cyber.sell.whatever address, along with a copy to root, postmaster, and the DNS contacts, with a headers saying what group it was found in, that unsolicited postings are not nice, and finally append a copy of the RFC on good net manners :) Lot of these are sitting in the SMTP queue a LONG time. I suspect the target addresses are... shall we say active :) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 09:49:37 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 10:48:33 EST From: "William G. Howard" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <0098BEB7.CFA661A0.39@academ.wvwc.edu> Subject: Remote protocol error problem I recently received the following error message and can't really tell why this site would be having problems. Our setup is pretty generic. We are running MX 4.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- >Return-Path: >Received: from FREDNET.COM by academ.wvwc.edu (MX V4.1 VAX) with SMTP; Fri, 10 > Feb 1995 18:01:37 EST >Received: by FREDNET.COM (4.1/FNS-3.1a) id AA08527; Fri, 10 Feb 95 14:57:39 PST >Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 14:57:39 PST >From: fjb@FREDNET.COM (Fred J. Bourgeois) >Message-ID: <9502102257.AA08527@FREDNET.COM> >To: Postmaster@academ.wvwc.edu >Subject: bug in your mail processing.... > >TWIMC: > I've gotten the following error response from your site a number of >times now, so perhaps you should look into the problem. The extracted >header is included below. So far, your's is the only site on internet >that will not accept mail sent from a uucp-connected site through an >internet site to another internet site. In general, the default behviour >of most sendmail.cf configurations will accept these style addresses. > -fjb > >> From FREDNET.COM!Mailer-Daemon Fri Feb 10 14:45:26 1995 remote from fns1.frednet.com >> Received: from bedrock.UUCP by FREDNET.COM (4.1/FNS-3.1a) >> id AB08478; Fri, 10 Feb 95 14:45:26 PST >> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 14:45:26 PST >> From: Mailer-Daemon@FREDNET.COM (Mail Delivery Subsystem) >> Subject: Returned mail: Remote protocol error >> Message-Id: <9502102245.AB08478@FREDNET.COM> >> To: bedrock!Frednet.com!fjb >> >> ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >> Connected to academ.wvwc.edu: >> >>> MAIL From: >> <<< 501 Invalid address: >> 554 burns_d@academ.wvwc.edu... Remote protocol error >> >> ----- Unsent message follows ----- >> Return-Path: >> Received: from bedrock.UUCP by FREDNET.COM (4.1/FNS-3.1a) >>> id AA08476; Fri, 10 Feb 95 14:45:26 PST >> Received: by bedrock.Frednet.com (4.1/FNS-2.1.4) >> id AA21125; Fri, 10 Feb 95 14:44:58 PST >> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 14:44:58 PST >> From: fjb@FREDNET.COM (Fred J. Bourgeois) >> Message-Id: <9502102244.AA21125@bedrock.Frednet.com> >> To: burns_d@academ.wvwc.edu Any ideas? TIA ,`````````````````````````````````````.`````````````````````````````````````, , William G. Howard (O.T.O.) . 1. Damned 2. Damned , , West Virginia Wesleyan College . if you if you , , howard_w@academ.wvwc.edu . Do Don't , , programmer@academ.wvwc.edu . , , howard_w@wvlink.mpl.com . C'mon, c'mon-it's one or the other. , , (304)473-8318 . -FarSide , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 17:35:21 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: selphj@alpha.obu.edu (John Selph) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: changed hostname & From address wrong Date: 13 Feb 1995 18:59:37 GMT Message-ID: <3hoa6p$soe@news.ualr.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU We have VMS 5.5 here with UCX and recently changed hostnames. We reran the UCX configuration and it went fine. We took steps we thought would change MX.. but we have a "side effect" left over. Our old LAT hostname was "obusys", and old IP hostname was "obu.arknet.edu". Now, the LAT hostname is the same, but the new IP hostname is "sci.obu.edu". However, now all the MX mail appears to come from MX%"username@obusys" instead of sci.obu.edu. How do I fix this? ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 18:13:07 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: Problems receiving from lists (not receiving) Date: 13 Feb 1995 21:33:11 GMT Message-ID: <3hoj6n$94o@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <3hj6as$287@ipgate.hartford.edu>, SYSTEM@UHAVAX.HARTFORD.EDU (SYSTEM MANAGER) writes: =We suddenly stopped receiving mail from mailing lists the other day. It =appears that personal one-to-one mail is coming through from the Internet - =just not the listserved-stuff. I have been in contact with our internet =provider to see if any DNS problems they had recently could be contributing =to our problems. = =I have not knowingly made any changes to our MX configuration, etc. It just =stopped working. = =We are running MX 4.1 on VMS 5.5-2 and UCX 3.1. Had been running very well =up to now. Don't see any errors in the accounting or log files. = =Has anyone else had this happen? If the lists in question are reasonably active, AND your system had problems which caused it to reject several messages from each of those lists, it's possible that the LISTSERVs automatically deleted the offending subscriptions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 20:41:57 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: mvbinet@yogi.hns.com Subject: Failed mail Date: 6 Feb 1995 12:14:23 GMT Message-ID: <3h53qv$gu@hnssysb.hns.com> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Is there any way of manually routing failed messages if you know where they should've gone? I have some messages queing for retry to route HNSLTD, these should've been address rewritten to be {node}::{user}"@{rest}" It says host unknown at the moment. I'm sorry if I haven't explained too clearly. +----------------------------------------------------------+-------------------+ | Mark Van-Bellen E-Mails MVANBELLEN@HNS.COM | | | Systems Engineer +----------------------------+ | | Hughes Network Systems Ltd. | Telephone : +44 908 221122 extension 211 | | Milton Keynes, England. | Fax : +44 908 221127 | +-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ | The three faithful things in life are money, a dog, and an old woman. | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 20:42:03 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: mvbinet@yogi.hns.com Subject: administering mailing lists from another node Date: 6 Feb 1995 15:45:41 GMT Message-ID: <3h5g75$1ut@hnssysb.hns.com> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Is it possible to be a list owner on a node other than the one running MX? Ie. If I am user MARK on VAXA and want to add user ROBERT to mailing list TEST on node VAXB (running Decnet and MX), by sending from VAXA to : VAXB::MX%"test-request" Add ROBERT%VAXA The list owner is set to mark%vaxa@yogi.hns.com , but doesn't work because the source of the address appears as vaxa::mark to the mx mailer....How can I get round this....or can't I? Mark +----------------------------------------------------------+-------------------+ | Mark Van-Bellen E-Mails MVANBELLEN@HNS.COM | | | Systems Engineer +----------------------------+ | | Hughes Network Systems Ltd. | Telephone : +44 908 221122 extension 211 | | Milton Keynes, England. | Fax : +44 908 221127 | +-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ | The three faithful things in life are money, a dog, and an old woman. | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:10:30 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: sharp@noao.edu (Nigel Sharp) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: Remote protocol error problem Date: 14 Feb 1995 02:18:58 GMT Message-ID: <3hp3ui$70i@noao.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <0098BEB7.CFA661A0.39@academ.wvwc.edu> "William G. Howard" writes: >I recently received the following error message and can't really tell ... > ... >>> >>> MAIL From: >>> <<< 501 Invalid address: I have seen similar errors. The problem appears to be that MX INSISTS, absolutely and without quarter, that the "From" address, i.e. the person sending you mail, should be RFC-compliant, i.e. that it have the format. This "From" address does not, and is therefore invalid, causing MX to reject the mail. Gateways for things like UUCP mail should be tagging their own name onto the address, so that the above "From" line would conform - in other words, my understanding is that the remote site is in violation in a way that most mailers ignore or flag only as a warning, but that MX rejects as an error. I would very much like a way to tell MX I don't mind these errors and not to reject them any more, but haven't found one ! Please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm still learning MX. Nigel Sharp, National Optical Astronomy Observatories nsharp@noao.edu P.O. Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726 (602-325-9273: 520-318-8273 after March 19th) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 22:08:54 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: wayne@tachyon.com Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: parse errors in the file server portion of MLF Message-ID: <1995Feb13.185337.2@tachyon.com> Date: 13 Feb 95 18:53:37 CST To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <1995Feb12.120307.1@tachyon.com>, wayne@tachyon.com writes: > > I have been having a problem with the way the file server portion of MLF parses > commands. If you are asking for an individual file with the package.number > notation, and you use a space instead of period beween package and number, the > number portion is not seen. The result is that the entire package is sent, > rather than an individual file. > > Admittedly, this is an error on the part of the user, but there are a lot of > idiots out there, and parsers expecting input from the general public should be > as bulletproof as possible. This has happened to my server more than once. > Last time, it occurred with a very large package, wasting a great deal of mail > bandwidth. It would be much better for the MLF parser to either treat the > blank as a period and send the individual file or to flag a syntax error and > abort the command. This should be easy to do, since the sendme command has > only one parameter. The presence of a second parameter should be a syntax > error. > > > > The following log illustrates this behavior (the command *should* have been > "sendme FILESERV_TOOLS.05-OF-12"): > ============================================================================ > Sender: FILESERV-Mgr@tachyon.com > Errors-To: FILESERV-Mgr@tachyon.com > Warnings-To: <> > From: FILESERV-Mgr@tachyon.com > Reply-To: FILESERV@tachyon.com > Subject: File server FILESERV: transaction log > To: wayne@tachyon.com > > Command: sendme FILESERV_TOOLS 05-OF-12 > File FILESERV_TOOLS.01-OF-12 has been sent. > File FILESERV_TOOLS.02-OF-12 has been sent. > File FILESERV_TOOLS.03-OF-12 has been sent. > File FILESERV_TOOLS.04-OF-12 has been sent. > File FILESERV_TOOLS.05-OF-12 has been sent. > File FILESERV_TOOLS.06-OF-12 has been sent. > File FILESERV_TOOLS.07-OF-12 has been sent. > File FILESERV_TOOLS.08-OF-12 has been sent. > File FILESERV_TOOLS.09-OF-12 has been sent. > File FILESERV_TOOLS.10-OF-12 has been sent. > File FILESERV_TOOLS.11-OF-12 has been sent. > File FILESERV_TOOLS.12-OF-12 has been sent. > File FILESERV_TOOLS.README has been sent. > ---------- > Command: quit > I looked at the sources for mlf and made a modification that solves the problem in a crude way. It turns out that the mlf parse uses TPARSE rather than CLI. The following line in the TPARSE table (in [.MLF]PARSE_FILESERV_CMD.B32) means that the scan will stop with success once the file name is found: (TPA$_FILESPEC, TPA$_EXIT, PFC_STORE_FILESPEC,,, FSCMD__SEND)); Anything following the file name will be ignored, which is the problem I am having. The modification below will prevent the behavior described in my earlier message: ************ File MX_SRC:[MX.MLF]PARSE_FILESERV_CMD.B32;6 (new) 68 (TPA$_FILESPEC, SEND2, PFC_STORE_FILESPEC)); 69 ! sendme/get valid-vms-file-specification 70 $STATE (SEND2, 71 (TPA$_BLANK, SEND2), 72 (TPA$_EOS, TPA$_EXIT, PFC_STORE,,, FSCMD__SEND), !Allow no other args 73 (TPA$_LAMBDA, TPA$_FAIL,PFC_STORE,,, FSCMD__UNKNOWN)); 74 75 $STATE (LIST1, ****** File MX_SRC:[MX.MLF]PARSE_FILESERV_CMD.B32;1 (original) 68 (TPA$_FILESPEC, TPA$_EXIT, PFC_STORE_FILESPEC,,, FSCMD__SEND)); 69 ! sendme/get valid-vms-file-specification 70 $STATE (LIST1, ************ Now the discovery of a valid file name will transfer the scan to state SEND2. After ignoring trailing blanks, a success will be returned only if end-of-string is found. Anything else will set the command code to unknown, causing a failure. Here is the log resulting from the above modification: Reply-To: FILESERV@tachyon.com Subject: File server FILESERV: transaction log To: wayne@tachyon.com Command: send fileserv_tools.04-of-12 File FILESERV_TOOLS.04-OF-12 has been sent. ---------- Command: send fileserv_tools 04-of-12 Unrecognized command; try HELP for more information. ---------- Command: quit Since the syntax error is flagged as an unknown command rather than a syntax error, it may be confusing to the person who made the request. However, I'm willing to settle for that to prevent sending an entire package over my mail link when only a single file was desired. This will hold me until Hunter fixes MLF more elegantly. Wayne -- ======================================================================== Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting |wayne@tachyon.com >>mail to pgpkey@tachyon.com for pgp key |(214)-553-9760 Key fingerprint = 77 A5 C1 56 9C ED F1 8E 89 F9 27 3C 86 79 F7 1B ======================================================================== Larry:"I'll do it when I'm ready!" Moe(with menace):"Are ya ready?" L:"Yeah." ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 08:35:18 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 08:34:38 CST From: Bob Christenson Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098BF6E.4500AE40.4@fcseng.frco.com> Subject: RE: changed hostname & From address wrong writes: } } We have VMS 5.5 here with UCX and recently changed hostnames. } We reran the UCX configuration and it went fine. We took steps we } thought would change MX.. but we have a "side effect" left over. Our } old LAT hostname was "obusys", and old IP hostname was "obu.arknet.edu". } Now, the LAT hostname is the same, but the new IP hostname is } "sci.obu.edu". However, now all the MX mail appears to come from } MX%"username@obusys" instead of sci.obu.edu. How do I fix this? Please check your logical names for MX. Issue $SHOW LOGICAL MX* at check specifically the MX_NODE_NAME and MX_VMSMAIL_LOCALHOST. One of them is set to "obusys" or "@obysys". The fix can be applied by a couple of ways. One is to run @MX_DIR:MXCONFIG, the other is to edit MX_LOGICALS.DAT. You will then need to reset MX by a $MCP RESET. If you are in a cluster, you will need to add a /CLUSTER on the reset. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ // Bob Christenson, Sr. Sys Analyst _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // Fisher Controls Int., Inc. _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // R.A. Engel Technical Center _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ // Marshalltown, IA 50158 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // Voice Phone : (515) 754-3854 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // FAX Phone : (515) 754-2831 _/ _/. _/ _/. _/_/_/_/_/. // Inet Address: rachri1@fcseng.frco.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 08:37:16 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 08:36:57 CST From: Bob Christenson Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098BF6E.980CC060.7@fcseng.frco.com> Subject: RE: administering mailing lists from another node writes: } } Is it possible to be a list owner on a node other than the one running } MX? Ie. If I am user MARK on VAXA and want to add user ROBERT to mailing } list TEST on node VAXB (running Decnet and MX), by sending from VAXA } } to : VAXB::MX%"test-request" } } Add ROBERT%VAXA } Yes it is. } The list owner is set to mark%vaxa@yogi.hns.com , but doesn't work because } the source of the address appears as vaxa::mark to the mx mailer....How can } I get round this....or can't I? } } Mark You need to add an entry in the owner field of the list to match "vaxa::mark". A list can have multiple owners. See the doc for how to. Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ // Bob Christenson, Sr. Sys Analyst _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // Fisher Controls Int., Inc. _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // R.A. Engel Technical Center _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ // Marshalltown, IA 50158 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // Voice Phone : (515) 754-3854 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // FAX Phone : (515) 754-2831 _/ _/. _/ _/. _/_/_/_/_/. // Inet Address: rachri1@fcseng.frco.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 09:12:36 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 09:05:42 EST From: "Brian Tillman" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: uunet!WKUVX1.WKU.EDU!mx-list@esseye.si.com Message-ID: <0098BF72.9BEE91A0.19@swdev.si.com> Subject: Re: Remote protocol error problem Nigel Sharp (nsharp@noao.edu) writes: > Gateways for things like UUCP >mail should be tagging their own name onto the address, so that the >above "From" line would conform - in other words, my understanding is >that the remote site is in violation in a way that most mailers >ignore or flag only as a warning, but that MX rejects as an error. Well, then, one of the largest suppliers of Internet access, UUNET, is always in violation. All our mail comes with addresses in that form. Fortunately we use a Unix system running smail as our mail gateway. It tack on its own node address at the end to make the address compliant. -- Brian tillman_brian@si.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 10:23:32 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Mailing list query Message-ID: <3gst17$3jv@hnssysb.hns.com> From: mvbinet@yogi.hns.com Date: 3 Feb 1995 09:29:11 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU REPOST In article <3fgq2j$i4q@hnssysb.hns.com, mvbinet@yogi.hns.com writes: Our mx-server is a on a separate node to our main-stream users along of course with the internetworking software (cmuip 6-6.5a). The reason being to try and keep separate from our main machines. Mail is sent via. addressing IN"user@address" where IN is a logical name equivalent to PLOD::MX%. Internet mail works fine (apart from when cmu has problems accessing a nameserver). Public mailing lists are ok too. Where the problem occurs is with mailing lists with specified owners whom should handle subscription requests etc.. Here is the list definition : Mailing lists: Name: ccb-team Owner: "m_vanbellen%yogi@YOGI.HNS.COM" Reply-to: NOList, Sender Description: Configuration and Control Board Team Errors-to: m_vanbellen%yogi@yogi.hns.com Strip header: NOReceived, NOOther Private list: No Case sensitive: No Protection: (SYSTEM:RWED,OWNER:RWED,GROUP:RWED,WORLD:R) Now I think the problem is when mxserver attempts to authorize m_vanbellen the sending address is "yogi::m_vanbellen"@yogi.hns.com, however MX will not let me set the owning user to the above - so the question is how do I get round it? My Paths and Rewrites are as follows (supplementary info) Domain-to-path mappings: Domain="yogi.hns.com", Path=Local Domain="*.BITNET", Path=SMTP, Route="cunyvm.cuny.edu" Domain="*.UUCP", Path=SMTP, Route="uunet.uu.net" Domain="*", Path=SMTP Address-rewriting rules: Rewrite "<{user}%{node}@{rest}>" = "<""{node}::{user}""@{rest}>" I would appreciate any help you could spare me on this matter. Also if you could let me know if you receive this posting ok as I have posted to a number of newsgroups recently and not had replies. Thanks, Mark +----------------------------------------------------------+-------------------+ | Mark Van-Bellen E-Mails MVANBELLEN@HNS.COM | | | Systems Engineer +----------------------------+ | | Hughes Network Systems Ltd. | Telephone : +44 908 221122 extension 211 | | Milton Keynes, England. | Fax : +44 908 221127 | +-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ | The three faithful things in life are money, a dog, and an old woman. | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------+-------------------+ | Mark Van-Bellen E-Mails MVANBELLEN@HNS.COM | | | Systems Engineer +----------------------------+ | | Hughes Network Systems Ltd. | Telephone : +44 908 221122 extension 211 | | Milton Keynes, England. | Fax : +44 908 221127 | +-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ | The three faithful things in life are money, a dog, and an old woman. | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 10:33:06 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 11:29:32 EST From: smcneilly@fred.bridgew.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098BF86.B3AB71A0.68@fred.bridgew.edu> Subject: RE: changed hostname & From address wrong John Selph writes: >We have VMS 5.5 here with UCX and recently changed hostnames. >We reran the UCX configuration and it went fine. We took steps we >thought would change MX.. but we have a "side effect" left over. Our >old LAT hostname was "obusys", and old IP hostname was "obu.arknet.edu". >Now, the LAT hostname is the same, but the new IP hostname is >"sci.obu.edu". However, now all the MX mail appears to come from >MX%"username@obusys" instead of sci.obu.edu. How do I fix this? Check and change, if necessary, the value of the logical name MX_VMSMAIL_LOCALHOST. To make change permanent, you will have to change MX_DIR:MX_LOGICALS.DAT (You can use a text editor.) You might also want to check to see that MX_NODE_NAME and MX_FLQ_NODE_NAME are also correct. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Mc Neilly email: smcneilly@bridgew.edu Assistant Director Phone: 508-697-1236 Information Services Bridgewater State College Bridgewater, MA 02325 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 11:05:10 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: MOLIVER@npr.org Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 12:04:43 -0500 (EST) To: MX-LIST@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: MOLIVER@npr.org Message-ID: <950214120443.20214f83@npr.org> Subject: unsubscribe unsubscribe Miles D. Oliver ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 11:38:56 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: sharp@noao.edu (Nigel Sharp) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: Failed mail Date: 14 Feb 1995 16:59:35 GMT Message-ID: <3hqnhn$t20@noao.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <3h53qv$gu@hnssysb.hns.com> mvbinet@yogi.hns.com writes: >Is there any way of manually routing failed messages if you know where >they should've gone? > ... I would also love to get an answer to this. I often see mail messages which are incorrectly addressed in ways that don't bounce (e.g sending to a node that doesn't have sendmail running, sending to a disconnected DECnet node) and under our old mail system could simply edit the header and re-direct to the correct location (whilst informing the sender of the correction, but thus avoiding their having to recreate the mail [I'm amazed how many people don't keep copies of their outgoing mail]). I don't seem able to edit the header files in the MX queue subdirectories - at least, not in a way that makes MX recognise the change ! So: a way to change the To: addresses of mail in the MX queue, please. Nigel Sharp, National Optical Astronomy Observatories nsharp@noao.edu P.O. Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726 (602-325-9273: 520-318-8273 after March 19th) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 13:25:17 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 13:22:32 CST From: "Robert H. McClanahan, Manager TIS" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: rmcclanahan@tis.aecc.com Message-ID: <0098BF96.7D3C8E93.3@tis.aecc.com> Subject: Re: Remote protocol error problem > > Gateways for things like UUCP > >mail should be tagging their own name onto the address, so that the > >above "From" line would conform - in other words, my understanding is > >that the remote site is in violation in a way that most mailers > >ignore or flag only as a warning, but that MX rejects as an error. > > Well, then, one of the largest suppliers of Internet access, UUNET, is always in > violation. All our mail comes with addresses in that form. Fortunately we use > a Unix system running smail as our mail gateway. It tack on its own node > address at the end to make the address compliant. > -- > Brian > tillman_brian@si.com If I might add a word here: We subscribe to UUNET's UUCP mail service, using DECUS UUCP as our mail gateway (and MX as well). When we first started using UUNET, I seem to remember that we received all addresses from UUNET in "bang-path" (or UUCP) format. After we registered our domain, I emailed UUNET and asked them to please send all addresses to me "as-is" and told them that I would handle all address translation and routing. They quickly obliged and I now get addresses as "node@host". RHM +--+ 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, 14 Feb 1995 13:40:36 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 14:35:56 EST From: "Russell O. Redman" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: redman@hiaras.hia.nrc.ca Message-ID: <0098BFA0.BDECB920.9@hiaras.hia.nrc.ca> Subject: RE: Failed mail > Subject: Failed mail > Date: 6 Feb 1995 12:14:23 GMT > To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU > Mark Van-Bellen asks: > Is there any way of manually routing failed messages if you know where > they should've gone? Hear, hear! I have often found messages queued which will never be delivered because they are being sent to a non-existant host by mistake. I quite often know exactly what the error was. If I just ignore it, the message will bounce back to the sender, but this takes several days and they often do not recognise their own error. Instead I am told the "E-mail is not working again!". I know that I could extract the message text from the queue and resend it, but this is a multistep, error-prone process, and would probably be regarded as a breach of privacy. What I would really like is a command of the form MCP QUEUE REDIRECT which would send the mail to a corrected address without my having to look at it. Ideally, an error message would be returned to the original sender, alerting them that their message has been redirected. Something of the form Warning! Your message of addressed to has been redirected to by . Cheers Dr. R. O. Redman, . James Clerk Maxwell Telescope Group, |\^/| Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, _|\| |/|_ National Research Council of Canada, > < Tel: 1-613-991-5839 room 2069, 100 Sussex Drive, >_./|\._< Fax: 1-613-993-6004 Ottawa, Ont., Canada K1A 0R6 | E: Russell.Redman@nrc.ca -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. R. O. Redman, . Groupe du Telescope James Clerk Maxwell, |\^/| Institut Herzberg d'Astrophysique, _|\| |/|_ Conseil National de Recherches du Canada,> < Tel: 1-613-991-5839 salle 2069, 100 promenade Sussex, >_./|\._< Fax: 1-613-993-6004 Ottawa, Ont., Canada K1A 0R6 | E: Russell.Redman@nrc.ca ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:22:30 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 15:02:57 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Stacks Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: RE: Failed mail To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098BFA4.84455DE0.5@adpce.lrk.ar.us> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT "Russell O. Redman" adds: >> >Mark Van-Bellen asks: >> Is there any way of manually routing failed messages if you know where >> they should've gone? > >Hear, hear! I have often found messages queued which will never be delivered >because they are being sent to a non-existant host by mistake. I quite often [snip] > MCP QUEUE REDIRECT >which would send the mail to a corrected address without my having to look at >it. Ideally, an error message would be returned to the original sender, >alerting them that their message has been redirected. Something of the form > Warning! Your message of > addressed to > has been redirected to > by . > *Excellent* suggestion! Love to see it... ---------- 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 voice: 501-570-2174 fax: 501-562-4632 email: stacks@adpce.lrk.ar.us ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 01:14:06 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: sharp@noao.edu (Nigel Sharp) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: Failed mail Date: 15 Feb 1995 06:54:07 GMT Message-ID: <3hs8ef$t8j@noao.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU As a brief follow-up, I used the VFE editor to change the address in the SMTP header file. All my SMTP delivery agents promptly crashed until such time as I cancelled the offender (STR format error). Doubtless I violated some string termination or length or format or something, although I carefully filled in nulls where they seemed needed. So it may be possible to edit in a change, but it certainly isn't obvious or easy ! Add an extra vote for the MCP REDIRECT command (can I get double votes because I tried to do it anyway ?). Nigel Sharp, National Optical Astronomy Observatories nsharp@noao.edu P.O. Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726 (602-325-9273: 520-318-8273 after March 19th) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 03:16:58 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 10:15:23 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: <0098C045.829E2B60.9@ChbRB.Berlin.PTB.De> Subject: RE: Failed mail Dr. R. O. Redman proposed > What I would really like is a command of the form > MCP QUEUE REDIRECT This would be a very useful feature. > Ideally, an error message would be returned to the original sender, > alerting them that their message has been redirected. My opinion is that the sender m u s t be informed about any manipulation. Users rely on mail transmission as addressed if they get no other information. It should also be the default action for the QUEUE CANCEL command on inbound messages to inform the sender. I think that MX now sends a nondelivery message only when the transfer was aborted due to failures. --,------------------------------------------------------.------------------ | 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: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 09:47:05 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <24127.199502151541@hawk.le.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Failed mail To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 15:41:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Jon Morgan Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Content-Type: text Russell O. Redman said that: > Mark Van-Bellen asks: > > Is there any way of manually routing failed messages if you know where > > they should've gone? > > Hear, hear! I have often found messages queued which will never be delivered > because they are being sent to a non-existant host by mistake. I quite often > know exactly what the error was. If I just ignore it, the message will bounce > back to the sender, but this takes several days and they often do not recognise > their own error. Instead I am told the "E-mail is not working again!". I know > that I could extract the message text from the queue and resend it, but this is > a multistep, error-prone process, and would probably be regarded as a breach of > privacy. What I would really like is a command of the form > MCP QUEUE REDIRECT > which would send the mail to a corrected address without my having to look at > it. Ideally, an error message would be returned to the original sender, > alerting them that their message has been redirected. Something of the form > Warning! Your message of > addressed to > has been redirected to > by . I had twenty messages sitting like dead ducks in my queues. If there was such a command then the whole thing would be a breeze to reroute, as it is, I copied the file out of the queue and sent it back to the sender with an explanation. Yes it IS error-prone, and yes it IS a (probable - I'm no lawyer) breach of privacy, but would they rather the mail sent again properly or it disappearing down the bit bucket? I, for one, would find such a command extremely useful. -jon. -- Jon Morgan Postmaster, HICOM Services Department of Maths and Computer Science University of Leicester ____________________ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 09:30:08 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 15:27:16 GMT From: rourke_j@actfs.co.uk Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <0098C13A.3EEAAA10.9@actfs.co.uk> Subject: MX % problem Can someone explain the following behaviour of MX? When I send mail from an external source using the addressing format user%node@domain the mail is rejected. The following ROUTER log file shows why... %PROCESS, Processing entry number 1 %PROCESS, Status from READ_INFO was 00000001 %PROCESS, Recipient #0: <"rourke_j%sodor"@actfs.co.uk> %REWRITE, No rewrite rules matched <"rourke_j%sodor"@actfs.co.uk> %FINDPATH, Site-spec expand on actfs.co.uk err=00000000 %FINDPATH, domain name ACTFS.CO.UK matched path pattern ACTFS.CO.UK %PROCESS, Rewrote <"rourke_j%sodor"@actfs.co.uk> as <"rourke_j%sodor"@actfs.co.uk> - next hop actfs.co.uk, path 1 %FINDALIAS, %-dehacked "rourke_j%sodor" into: <"rourke_j@sodor"> %PROCESS, Invalid address: <"rourke_j@sodor"> %PROCESS, Beginning ERRORQ processing. %PROCESS, RETURN_MESSAGE status was 00000001 %PROCESS, Marking this entry as finished. If I use the same address on the node which processes the incoming mail everything works fine !! The ROUTER log now shows that the correct rewrite rule is found for the address in question even though the previous example said that the address was invalid. The address looks the same to me so what's the problem? Here is the log for the successful delivery %PROCESS, Processing entry number 1 %PROCESS, Status from READ_INFO was 00000001 %PROCESS, Message originated in VMS Mail. %PROCESS, will run domain expander on envelope addresses. %PROCESS, Processing address: %PROCESS, ... address now reads: %PROCESS, will run domain expander on message headers. %PROCESS, Updating the QENT source address. %PROCESS, Finished VMSmail-origin preprocessing. %PROCESS, Recipient #0: %REWRITE, No rewrite rules matched %FINDPATH, Site-spec expand on actfs.co.uk err=00000000 %FINDPATH, domain name ACTFS.CO.UK matched path pattern ACTFS.CO.UK %PROCESS, Rewrote as - next hop actfs.co.uk, path 1 %FINDALIAS, %-dehacked rourke_j%sodor into: %REWRITE, Applying rewrite rule: <{USER}@SODOR> => <"sodor::{user}"@actfs.co.uk> to: %FINDPATH, Site-spec expand on actfs.co.uk err=00000000 %FINDPATH, domain name ACTFS.CO.UK matched path pattern ACTFS.CO.UK %PROCESS, Rewrote as <"sodor::rourke_j"@actfs.co.uk> - next hop actfs.co.uk, path 1 %FINDALIAS, no alias found for "sodor::rourke_j" %PROCESS, no alias found for "sodor::rourke_j" %PROCESS, this is just a local delivery %PROCESS, Adding to LOCAL path: "sodor::rourke_j". %PROCESS, Path LOCAL gets 1 rcpts, entry number 2 ============================================================================= John Rourke ** ***************** ******************** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ********* *** ****************** *** Financial Systems John.Rourke@actfs.co.uk ============================================================================= ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 09:37:16 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 10:35:54 EST From: "Melissa Thomas, Computer Services" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu CC: mdthomas@sae.ssu.umd.edu Message-ID: <0098C111.8AD465C0.28727@sae.ssu.umd.edu> Subject: MX on a VMS Cluster Greetings: I am new to this list and very new to the role of administrator of MX and the BIND Nameserver. At the current moment, I am having problems with my addressing for the cluster. We have a cluster called SAA which consists of two VMS minicomputers, SAA00 and SAA01. At the current moment, a UCX SHOW HOST for SAA* displays: LOCAL database Host address Host name 131.118.32.2 saa.ssu.umd.edu, saa, SAA, SAA.SSU.UMD.EDU 131.118.32.22 saa00.ssu.umd.edu, saa00, SAA00, SAA00.SSU.UMD.EDU 131.118.32.23 saa01.ssu.umd.edu, saa01, SAA01, SAA01.SSU.UMD.EDU Also, my MX_LOGICALS on both SAA00 and SAA01 are: "MX_FLQ_NODE_NAME" = "SAA" "MX_NODE_NAME" = "saa.ssu.umd.edu" "MX_VMSMAIL_LOCALHOST" = "@saa.ssu.umd.edu" Therefore, when a person on the cluster sends a message their return address is displayed as "userid@saa.ssu.umd.edu", which is exactly what we want. The problem comes in that when the recipient of the message tries to reply, it will not reach the user on the cluster. Instead, the following SMTP error message is received: >Error occurred sending to the following user(s): > (via saa.ssu.umd.edu): > %MX-F-RETRYEXCD, retry count exceeded > -SYSTEM-F-TIMEOUT, device timeout My question is where, on the BIND nameserver, UCX, or MX can I make changes so that the mail for SAA will be distributed to the users on the cluster? And how do I go about doing this? Thanks in advance for any assistance. - Melissa ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Melissa Thomas Academic Analyst Internet: MDTHOMAS@SAE.SSU.UMD.EDU Salisbury State University BITNET: MDTHOMAS@SAE.TOWSON.EDU Take time today to give someone a hug, to share a friendly smile, and to recycle for a better earth tomorrow. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 12:19:16 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: parse errors in the file server portion of MLF Date: 16 Feb 1995 18:03:08 GMT Message-ID: <3i040s$1i7@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <1995Feb12.120307.1@tachyon.com>, wayne@tachyon.com writes: = =I have been having a problem with the way the file server portion of MLF parses =commands. If you are asking for an individual file with the package.number =notation, and you use a space instead of period beween package and number, the =number portion is not seen. The result is that the entire package is sent, =rather than an individual file. = =Admittedly, this is an error on the part of the user, but there are a lot of =idiots out there, There are also lots of folks out there who use VM/CMS, where, if I recall correctly, filenames tend to come in three fields, separated by spaces. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 16 Feb 1995 12:42:32 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: koepsel@lobelia.physics.wisc.edu (Richard Koepsel) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: mx, vms-mail and jnet Date: 16 Feb 1995 18:21:02 GMT Message-ID: To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Hello, I am running MX 4.1, OpenVMS 6.1 (vax), and jnet 3.5 on only one node of an OpenVMS cluster. My problems is that my bitnet/jnet mail comes in on my jnet link and is automatically handled by the jnet software which is just fine provided the user receiving jnet% or bitnet% mail happens to be logged in on the node with the jnet license. If the user is on another node (usually the case), and tries to use "reply", MX can't recognize the address and it becomes a deadletter returned to sender. I have tried rewrite rules in MX to get the address changed from "jnet%{user}@{node}" to "in%{user}@{node}.bitnet" but that doesn't seem to work on an outgoing address. I don't seem to find anything in the jnet documentation (my consulting with the jnet folks has lapsed and is cost prohibitive) about changing incoming address formats. Do I have to reinstall MX to get jnet support? If so, what do I have to do with my jnet setup? Thank you Richard Koepsel Dept. of Physics U. of Wisc. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 12:46:07 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 12:45:34 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098C123.A805A237.16@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: mx, vms-mail and jnet koepsel@lobelia.physics.wisc.edu (Richard Koepsel) writes: > >I am running MX 4.1, OpenVMS 6.1 (vax), and jnet 3.5 on only one node of >an OpenVMS cluster. [...] >I don't seem to find anything in the jnet documentation (my consulting >with the jnet folks has lapsed and is cost prohibitive) about changing >incoming address formats. > >Do I have to reinstall MX to get jnet support? If so, what do I have to do >with my jnet setup? > You should install MX's Jnet support (as documented in the _MX Installation Guide_; you run VMSINSTAL again, but just select the Jnet component) and then disable Jnet's mailer so that MX handles *all* of you incoming traffic (this is all described in the installation and manager's guides). Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:14:56 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: dongray@genrad.co.uk (Derek Dongray) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Stuck messages with long lines. Message-ID: <1995Feb16.184958.65@genrad.co.uk> Date: 16 Feb 95 18:49:58 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Recently I have had several messages get stuck with the error "Bad parameter value". When investigated, these invariably turn out to be due to excessively long lines in the message text. Is there an easy fix for this? My current fix is to edit the relevent .MSG_TEXT and then READY the entry. For info, I am running MX 4.1, OpenVMS VAX 6.1. The problem messages arrive via DECUS UUCP 2.0 and are being forwarded by SMTP. -- 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, 16 Feb 1995 13:22:21 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:22:05 CST From: Bob Christenson Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098C128.C1F17860.4@fcseng.frco.com> Subject: RE: Failed mail I may be missing something here but shouldn't the action of a non-deliverable address be to return the failed message to the poster with an appropriate message indicating a suggestion as to why the message failed, such as not a valid user or host or domain etc. I am having a problem with allowing mechanisms for un-detected address manipulation. I know they probably are already out-there and are happening but it just doesn't sit well. This seems to be dealing with an issue that should be already handled at a transport or post office level. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ // Bob Christenson, Sr. Sys Analyst _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // Fisher Controls Int., Inc. _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // R.A. Engel Technical Center _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ // Marshalltown, IA 50158 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // Voice Phone : (515) 754-3854 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // FAX Phone : (515) 754-2831 _/ _/. _/ _/. _/_/_/_/_/. // Inet Address: rachri1@fcseng.frco.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:40:28 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:39:47 CST From: Bob Christenson Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098C12B.3AA89160.1@fcseng.frco.com> Subject: Re: Failed mail writes: } I had twenty messages sitting like dead ducks in my queues. If there } was such a command then the whole thing would be a breeze to reroute, } as it is, I copied the file out of the queue and sent it back to the } sender with an explanation. Yes it IS error-prone, and yes it IS a } (probable - I'm no lawyer) breach of privacy, but would they rather } the mail sent again properly or it disappearing down the bit bucket? } Why are they sitting there like dead ducks? They shouldn't disappear down the bit-bucket - they should be returned as a rejected message? I agree with the breach of privacy. What's to prevent a non-well intentioned admin from mis-using this? There's enough of a "faking" problem out there already. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ // Bob Christenson, Sr. Sys Analyst _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // Fisher Controls Int., Inc. _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // R.A. Engel Technical Center _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ // Marshalltown, IA 50158 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // Voice Phone : (515) 754-3854 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // FAX Phone : (515) 754-2831 _/ _/. _/ _/. _/_/_/_/_/. // Inet Address: rachri1@fcseng.frco.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 14:24:10 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 12:28:35 PST From: Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098C121.48C56FC0.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> Subject: CCMAIL bouncing SMTP mail from MX -- what's wrong? Folks -- Mail from my VAX (VAX 8800, VMS 6.1, MX 4.1, using MULTINET 3.3) to a site using CCMAIL bounces. Messages to this address have worked in the past. I don't know what the sysadmin at the other end has done lately. I get the same error with a SEND as with a REPLY. Mail from that site gets through fine. I hope you can tell me what's going on. My guess is that the problem is on the other end, since we don't have this problem with any other site. Here's the bounce notice: =========================================================================== Return-Path: <> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 11:44:10 PST From: SMTP delivery agent To: Subject: SMTP 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: person@ccgate.apl.com Error-Code: 2 Error-Text: %MX_SMTP-F-CMD_UNRECOGNIZE, syntax error: command unrecognized -(Via ccgate.apl.com) -Transcript: -Rcvd: 220 ccgate.apl.com Service ready -Sent: HELO ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu -Rcvd: 250 Pleased to meet you -Sent: MAIL FROM: -Rcvd: 500 Command unrecognized Error-End: 1 error detected ------------------------------ Rejected message ------------------------------ Received: by ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (MX V4.1 VAX) id 36; Thu, 16 Feb 1995 11:12:31 PST Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 11:12:30 PST From: Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing To: person@ccgate.apl.com CC: person%ccgate.apl.com@SLACVM.BITNET Message-ID: <0098C116.A7BAD3E0.36@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> Subject: RE: This and That =========================================================================== Actual text of message removed. Thanks! -- Alan =============================================================================== Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL750.BITNET or WINSTON@SLAC.STANFORD.EDU Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 415/926-3056 Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA 94309-0210 =============================================================================== ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 16:18:36 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 16:18:05 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MadGoat-Announce@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU, INFO-MADGOAT@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU, MX-LIST@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098C141.58466506.58@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: MadGoat Software status report Hi, MadGoat users! Matt Madison and I have found ourselves without a whole lot of free time to work on MadGoat Software products lately. Unfortunately, it looks like this trend will continue for the next several months. We are not dropping any of the products and still intend to work on them when we can, but there probably won't be new versions of anything until later this year (including, for example, MX, NETLIB, and NEWSRDR). Also, as MX-List subscribers know, my ability to reply to posts lately has been sporadic, at best. I apologize for that, but Matt's and my real jobs have been "interfering" too much lately. ;-) On the good news side, Darrell is almost finished with MGBOOK, MadGoat's Bookreader replacement for DECUS VTBOOK. Wait'll you see this version; I think you'll be pleased! Once MGBOOK is released, Darrell will also be adding passive mode support to MGFTP, so you can expect a new release of that in the coming months. Again, Matt and I hope that you'll understand if we fail to respond to problem reports or questions in the manner to which you've become accustomed. As our free time allows, we will do what we can with MadGoat products, but we felt it fair to update you on the current situation. Thanks! Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 01:58:23 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 07:53:30 +0000 From: THIERRY GUILMIN (Tel 47.46.37.25 ) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <"03358071205991/104271 X400*"@MHS> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: From Guilmin SIGNOFF MX-List ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 05:47:20 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <23597.199502171142@hawk.le.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Failed mail To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 11:42:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Jon Morgan Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Content-Type: text Bob Christenson said that: > Why are they sitting there like dead ducks? They shouldn't disappear down the > bit-bucket - they should be returned as a rejected message? I agree with the > breach of privacy. What's to prevent a non-well intentioned admin from > mis-using this? There's enough of a "faking" problem out there already. The problem was unrelated - my MX MLF process was dieing on me and so I had to manually start it up every so often (the problem was unrelated to MX; shonky batch jobs shouldn't be allowed) and this played havoc with the queue. This is why a lot of the time it was easier for me to remove the messages from the queue and repost them back to the sender (simply MAIL/SUBJ="Failed mail"/NOCC ). That way I sort of covered myself. Before I become flame bait, let me add that these messages were fairly important (I was tol this by the person involved) and couldn't wait. -jono. -- Jon Morgan Postmaster, HICOM Services Department of Maths and Computer Science University of Leicester ____________________ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 10:45:36 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 10:40:58 EST From: Chris Coats - System Manager Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: coats@HAL.BROOKS.AF.MIL Message-ID: <0098C1DB.6A67B600.12183@HAL.BROOKS.AF.MIL> Subject: MX pre-upgrade question Hello everybody: I recently subscribed to this list and did not see anything about a FAQ, so please let me know 1) if there is a FAQ and 2) if this question falls into that category. We are currently running MX 3.3 with CMU-IP 6.6-5A and VMS 5.5-2. I want to prepare for upgrading to VMS 6.x (probably 6.0), so I am wondering if: A) MX should be upgraded (to 4.x) or reinstalled after the VMS upgrade, or B) any patches need to be applied to MX either before or afterward, or C) MX can run as is after the upgrade, and won't be affected. Like I said, this sounds like FAQ-bait, so please just point me in the right direction(s) if my suspicions are true. Thanks in advance. - Chris /*----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Coats Computer Sciences Corporation coats@hal.brooks.af.mil Brooks AFB San Antonio, Tx. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 13:07:36 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 14:02:40 EST From: "Brian Tillman" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: coats@HAL.BROOKS.AF.MIL Message-ID: <0098C1F7.97BABBE0.38@swdev.si.com> Subject: RE: MX pre-upgrade question Chris Coats (coats@hal.brooks.af.mil) writes: > A) MX should be upgraded (to 4.x) or reinstalled after the VMS upgrade, or > B) any patches need to be applied to MX either before or afterward, or > C) MX can run as is after the upgrade, and won't be affected. I don't think you _need_ to upgrade to V4.1, but there have been a lot of improvements since V3.3 that you may find useful. MX won't need patching. MX can run as-is. However, there are new images of a couple of the CMUIP components. You should probably upgrade them. While you may not _need_ to do that either, you'll need to register a couple of the images. -- Brian tillman_brian@si.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 14:18:56 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 15:14:21 EST From: "Russell O. Redman" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: redman@hiaras.hia.nrc.ca Message-ID: <0098C201.9B689D20.3@hiaras.hia.nrc.ca> Subject: Re: Failed mail > Subject: Re: Failed mail > To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 11:42:44 +0000 (GMT) > From: Jon Morgan > > Bob Christenson said that: > > Why are they sitting there like dead ducks? They shouldn't disappear down the How can I trash thee? Let me count the ways... I can trash thee by typos. I can trash thee with nonstandard characters. I can mess up the system and misuse commands. As high as the sky and as wide as the sea Is the empty space in the head of a user. As low as a serpent and as pervasive as cockroaches Are the misunderstandings of part-time system managers... With apologies, there are lots of reasons why messages get stuck in the queue, usually just till they time out, sometimes forever. > > bit-bucket - they should be returned as a rejected message? I agree with the Yes, they will often be returned, but often several days later. For an urgent message this might be too late. Yet I do not want to set the timeout any shorter because for most messages it is acceptable to wait a couple of days (over a weekend, for example) until the other system comes back online. It is usually wise to consider a message sent by your boss to be urgent, even if it is not. > > breach of privacy. What's to prevent a non-well intentioned admin from > > mis-using this? There's enough of a "faking" problem out there already. Good point. > > The problem was unrelated - my MX MLF process was dieing on me and so > I had to manually start it up every so often (the problem was > unrelated to MX; shonky batch jobs shouldn't be allowed) and this > played havoc with the queue. This is why a lot of the time it was > easier for me to remove the messages from the queue and repost them > back to the sender (simply MAIL/SUBJ="Failed mail"/NOCC ). That > way I sort of covered myself. Before I become flame bait, let me add > that these messages were fairly important (I was tol this by the person > involved) and couldn't wait. > Here might be a better solution. What about an MCP> QUEUE REJECT command which simply returns the message to its originator IMMEDIATELY, with an error message tacked on the front. The real point is to get the message out of the queue and on to someone who can take appropriate action without breaching the privacy of the message or requiring a degree in system gymnastics. > -jono. > > -- > Jon Morgan > Postmaster, HICOM Services > Department of Maths and Computer Science > University of Leicester Dr. R. O. Redman, . James Clerk Maxwell Telescope Group, |\^/| Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, _|\| |/|_ National Research Council of Canada, > < Tel: 1-613-991-5839 room 2069, 100 Sussex Drive, >_./|\._< Fax: 1-613-993-6004 Ottawa, Ont., Canada K1A 0R6 | E: Russell.Redman@nrc.ca -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. R. O. Redman, . Groupe du Telescope James Clerk Maxwell, |\^/| Institut Herzberg d'Astrophysique, _|\| |/|_ Conseil National de Recherches du Canada,> < Tel: 1-613-991-5839 salle 2069, 100 promenade Sussex, >_./|\._< Fax: 1-613-993-6004 Ottawa, Ont., Canada K1A 0R6 | E: Russell.Redman@nrc.ca ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 01:52:29 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: administering mailing lists from another node Date: 18 Feb 1995 07:38:28 GMT Message-ID: <3i485k$5u9@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <3h5g75$1ut@hnssysb.hns.com>, mvbinet@yogi.hns.com writes: =Is it possible to be a list owner on a node other than the one running =MX? Yes. But you've GOT to get the address right. The easiest way to do this is to send mail from the owner-to-be to an account on the machine with the list, note the return address, and use that when you define the list. =Ie. If I am user MARK on VAXA and want to add user ROBERT to mailing =list TEST on node VAXB (running Decnet and MX), by sending from VAXA = =to : VAXB::MX%"test-request" = =Add ROBERT%VAXA = =The list owner is set to mark%vaxa@yogi.hns.com , but doesn't work because =the source of the address appears as vaxa::mark to the mx mailer....How can =I get round this....or can't I? Duh! How about telling MX that the owner of the list is vaxa::mark? SHEESH! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 18 Feb 1995 11:57:09 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 10:50:23 MST From: Rocky Mountain Star Stare '95 - July 28-30 Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com Message-ID: <0098C2A5.E5D5B4C0.1@borgil.cxo.dec.com> Subject: Logs for Fileserv Other than setting the MX_MLF_DEBUG logical, is there any way to get a transaction log of requests that are issued to a Fileserv? I'd like to see a file that shows when someone asks for a file, and what file(s) they retrieved. I'm wanting to use this so that I can determine the traffic on some files, to see which ones should be archived due to low accesses. Mike ____________________________________________________________________________ / Mike Frazier | Join us at the Rocky Mountain Star Stare '95 \ | Oracle World Wide Support | July 28 - 30 where over 150 attendees will | | Rdb Support Team | enjoy clear, DARK skies at an elevation of | | Colorado Springs, Colorado| 8700 feet above sea level! Write for Details. | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Email Address: m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com | \ WWW: http://www.hal.com/services/juggle/home/m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com/ / ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 21:02:51 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 22:00:13 EST From: Spencer Yost Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com CC: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <0098C303.787B89A0.54@ledger.co.forsyth.nc.us> Subject: Fileserv_log.log > From Mike Frazier: (m_frazier@borgil.cxo.dec.com) > > Other than setting the MX_MLF_DEBUG logical, is there any way to get a > transaction log of requests that are issued to a Fileserv? I'd like to > see a file that shows when someone asks for a file, and what file(s) > they retrieved. I'm wanting to use this so that I can determine the > traffic on some files, to see which ones should be archived due to low > accesses. > > Mike > Under mx_root:[mlf] (the handy logical is mx_mlf_dir:) there is a log called fileserv_log.log that contains this information. Hope this helps, +================================+====================================+ | 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: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 20:28:34 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 20:48:39 EST From: rich_h@simusa.sim.org Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098C48B.CE180A80.4@relay.sim.org> Subject: MX Site Interface 'From' Address Here is our situation, I am using the MX site interface to pass messages out to a commercial e-mail service (EasyLink) as a means of providing an e-mail to FAX gateway. I validate the 'from' address from a table and grab the associated billing & reference codes. The billing & reference codes are then added to the FAX address, which is then pre-pended to the message itself. The message is finally handed over to our VMS Mail to EasyLink gateway (Alisa Connection) for delivery. My problem comes in when we receive messages sent using UUCP to a commercial internet provider. Messages to our system then come in from the internet via another commercial provider using UUCP (Decus V2.0). The 'from' address of the message, parameter 4, is not what I expect. For instance, a message from 'user@sim.ch' has come thru at times as '@sim.ch:user@sim.ch' and at other times as 'sim.ch!user@sim.ch'. Another is 'user@sim.org.nz' which comes thru as '@iconz.co.nz,@simnz:user@sim.org.nz'. Where does the MX=>site interface get the 'from' address? The documentation (MX Programmer's Guide) states: The fourth parameter is the RFC822 address of the originator of the message, corresponding to the MAIL FROM address of an SMTP transaction. Instead, it appears that the site interface is taking it from the 'return-path' and not from either the 'from' or 'reply-to' addresses? Is this correct? If so, why? To help me work around this, are there any tools available that will parse the RFC822 headers from a message in a file, and return them as DCL symbols? I would rather not re-invent the wheel if someone already has done this. Thanks for the help, and Hunter, thanks for a great product. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rich Hill S I M rich_h@simusa.sim.org Systems Administrator b y EasyLink: 62923838 SIM USA, Inc. P r a y e r Phone: 1-704-587-1462 Charlotte, NC since 1893 FAX: 1-704-587-1518 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [SC] Smiley captioned for the humor impaired. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 00:54:45 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 14:52:27 SST From: leebp@iscs.nus.sg Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu Message-ID: <0098C523.35691F20.942@iscs.nus.sg> Subject: MX 4.1: Multinet 3.3C --> UCX 3.2 Hi guys ... Are there any gotchas I should watch out for when I shift support for MX 4.1 from Multinet 3.3C to UCX 3.2 instead? I'm running MX 4.1 as a common root and common mail queue on OpenVMS 6.1 (on Vaxes and AXP). I'm also running Jnet 3.5 TCP/AXP. What sort of documentation should I look at carefully? Thanks a lot .. Paul ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 11:17:48 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 18:15:21 +0100 From: "GWDGV1::MOELLER" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU, rich_h@simusa.sim.org CC: MOELLER@gwdg.de Subject: RE: MX Site Interface 'From' Address rich_h@simusa.sim.org asks: >[...] > Where does the MX=>site interface get the 'from' address? The > documentation (MX Programmer's Guide) states: > > The fourth parameter is the RFC822 address of the originator of > the message, corresponding to the MAIL FROM address of an SMTP > transaction. > > Instead, it appears that the site interface is taking it from the > 'return-path' and not from either the 'from' or 'reply-to' addresses? Is > this correct? If so, why? >[...] The Guide is right: the 'RFC822 addresses', also known as 'envelope addresses' in analogy to physical letters, are those that tell the SMTP mail transport system where a mail message is to be sent, and what the originator of that mail is (non-delivery notifications _ought_ to go to the 'RFC822 originator'). The MX->Site agent passes this 'envelope' information in the 3rd and 4th parameter. As opposed to user agents (both ends), the part of MX dealing with mail transport (to which MX Site interfaces) does not care at all for the contents of the message being shipped, of which the "From:" and "To:" addresses are just a part. RFC821, not to be confused with RFC822, deals with the format of that data. A delivery agent is supposed to add the 'RFC822 originator address' to the message under the "Return-Path:" label, exactly as you describe, so this information isn't lost when the mail leaves the SMTP world. (By the way, the MX site agent will _not_ do this for you.) If you want to know the "From:" and "To:" mail headers, you have to parse the mail message yourself. Be warned that under "To:", you often will _not_ find the actual destination address ('RFC822 to'); distribution list or multiple receivers are frequently listed there, which already have been resolved when the message entered the SMTP world. Wolfgang J. Moeller, Tel. +49 551 201516 or -510, GWDG, D-37077 Goettingen, F.R.Germany PSI%(0262)45050859008::MOELLER Disclaimer: No claim intended! | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 05:14:37 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: henrym@sacto.mp.usbr.gov Subject: Re: Remote protocol error problem Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 09:01:36 GMT Message-ID: <0098C578.4EABF926@sacto.mp.usbr.gov> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <0098BF72.9BEE91A0.19@swdev.si.com>, "Brian Tillman" writes: >Nigel Sharp (nsharp@noao.edu) writes: > >> Gateways for things like UUCP >>mail should be tagging their own name onto the address, so that the >>above "From" line would conform - in other words, my understanding is >>that the remote site is in violation in a way that most mailers >>ignore or flag only as a warning, but that MX rejects as an error. > >Well, then, one of the largest suppliers of Internet access, UUNET, is always in >violation. All our mail comes with addresses in that form. Fortunately we use >a Unix system running smail as our mail gateway. It tack on its own node >address at the end to make the address compliant. >-- >Brian >tillman_brian@si.com Brian, It's truly amazing, and frightening, that this can still happen. That's why I have our VAXCluster running MX set up as our mail hub! -HWM ---------- Henry W. Miller Assistant Systems and Network Manager U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid Pacific Region 2800 Cottage Way MP1130 Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 978-5108 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 12:47:48 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 13:45:45 EST Message-ID: <0098C5E30EB969A0.4060072A@giant.IntraNet.com> From: "G. Del Merritt" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: MX 4.1: Multinet 3.3C --> UCX 3.2 To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU, leebp@iscs.nus.sg > Are there any gotchas I should watch out for when I shift support >for MX 4.1 from Multinet 3.3C to UCX 3.2 instead? I'm running MX 4.1 as If you have IP addresses that use all fifteen possible character positions for the address, e.g.: 192.222.222.222 Then there is a bug in UCX 3.2 that will cause host lookups to fail. I'm trying to find the patch number from DEC CSC now, as a matter of fact. If all your adresses are at least one character shorter, e.g.: 192.222.22.222 or, 192.222.222.22 then this bug won't affect you. > What sort of documentation should I look at carefully? The UCX release notes would be a good start, but they don't always mention all the bugs. 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, 22 Feb 1995 16:27:55 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: psiinc@mcs.com (psiinc) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: S-CHICAGO AREA VMS, HP-U, DECnet, TCP/IP, C, C++ SYSTEMS ANALYST Date: 22 Feb 1995 22:14:11 GMT Message-ID: <3igcvj$ing@News1.mcs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: VMSnet-Internals@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU I am looking for SYSTEMS ANALYST who can design and develop new systems, subsystems and interfaces which promote more efficient internal operations. The ideal people will lead workgroups, monitor staff progress, produce system specifications from user needs analysis and risk analysis. Additionally , you will search for equipment which meets CHX needs. Please send resume with compensation history psiinc@mcs.com or fax (708) 679-8092. Attn.: Trey:vms ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 08:31:33 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: dongray@genrad.co.uk (Derek Dongray) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Removing the node name from reply addresses Message-ID: <1995Feb23.101907.86@genrad.co.uk> Date: 23 Feb 95 10:19:07 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU We have 4 VMSclusters (2 mixed) and a few standalone machines all using MX 4.1. The OpenVMS versions are either 5.5-2 or 6.1 and TCP/IP is either UCX 3.1 or CMU 6.6-5. Our gateway for mail (and news) is via DECUS UUCP 2.0 using a machine in one of the clusters. The problem is that mail is delivered with a return address of which, I gather, cannot always be replied to. The correct reply address should be . Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if I redefine MX_VMSMAIL_LOCALHOST to be "@genrad.co.uk", then it seems that some of the addresses will get redefined (e.g. From:), but not all (e.g. Return-path:). I am not sure whether doing this will upset internal mail between machines either. Since the gateway machine "know" that it is genrad.co.uk (as well as cdvs50.genrad.co.uk) presumably any internal replies will get sent to it, and it will the route them back to the relevant machine, thus putting an extra load on the network and extra work on the gateway machine. E.g. mails to ; the reply address is , so when B replies it is sent from V1 to GENRAD.CO.UK (aka CDVS50.GENRAD.CO.UK) which "knows' that A reads his mail on V1 so sends the message back there! What I'd really like to do is simply remove all node references on mail being transfer from MX to UUCP and leave all other addressing unchanged. By "all", I mean From:, Reply-to:, Return-Path: and any others that might get used as a reply address. Is this possible? Is there a hook on the MX->UUCP code or would I have to modify the source (naturally I have the free Bliss compiler). While I was doing this, I would like to "fix" return addresses from ALL-IN-1, since despite all my efforts with address rewriting, the Return-Path and "From ..." lines to UUCP still get constructs like "NODE::MRGATE::\"A1::USER\""@node.genrad.co.uk, even though the From address is a nice j.doe@genrad.co.uk! I'm sure I can't be the only site that has needed to solve this problem. How does anyone else do it? -- 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, 23 Feb 1995 14:21:27 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: selphj@alpha.obu.edu (John Selph) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: from: is wrong... - a [1/1] Date: 23 Feb 1995 20:06:54 GMT Message-ID: <3iipsu$a12@news.ualr.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU We changed hostnames on a VAX here.. and for some reason it has caused us the following problem. The machine seem to identify itself as obusys, which is the LAT name. It should be saying sci.obu.edu. You can see below, this causes the From line to be incorrect. We have checked all the MX logicals and they are right. I am thinking it's something about UCX.. but what and how do we fix it? Any one have ideas? Received: From ALPHA/MAILQUEUE by mailgate.obu.edu via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 102.950223105537.480; 23 Feb 95 10:56:17 +0100 Received: From obusys by mailgate.obu.edu via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with SMTP id 102.950223105537.480; 23 Feb 95 10:56:13 +0100 Received: by sci.obu.edu (MX V3.1B) id 4668; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 10:43:27 EST Sender: cagle@sci.obu.edu Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 10:39:00 EST From: cagle@obusys To: selphj@alpha.obu.edu Message-ID: <0098C692.22D307C0.4668@sci.obu.edu> Subject: Where are these addresses stored? ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 15:08:34 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: rtaylor@cie-2.uoregon.edu (Russ Taylor) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Looking for help with Mx/sendmail Date: 23 Feb 1995 20:13:24 GMT Message-ID: <3iiq94$2ar@pith.uoregon.edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU I need to find A) a precompiled MX_SITE_IN program and B) the instructions for invoking it properly from within a C (in this case, gcc) program. Any assistance would be appreciated. -- "Why do little blue midgets keep beating me with fish?" -- the Tick ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 16:24:27 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 17:22:16 EST From: "Jonathan E. Hardis" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: rtaylor@cie-2.uoregon.edu, hardis@garnet.nist.gov Message-ID: <0098C6CA.788B2CA0.6389@garnet.nist.gov> Subject: RE: Looking for help with Mx/sendmail > I need to find A) a precompiled MX_SITE_IN program What's wrong with the copy in MX_EXE: ? > B) the instructions for invoking it properly from within a C It's a command, not a subroutine. Is there a procedure for involking VMS commands from within your C system? Do LIB$DO_COMMAND & LIB$SPAWN help? See also page 1-2 of the MX Programmer's Guide. - Jonathan ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 22:00:15 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: poling@eisner.decus.org (JIM POLING) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: MAIL bounces, but nothing changed. Message-ID: <1995Feb23.124818.9208@eisner> Date: 23 Feb 95 12:48:18 -0500 To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU I have been running MX4.0 now for about a year, and have not touched the configuration, except for adding listserv's. I use MX in conjunction with multinet, and everything has worked perfectly, until about a month ago, I (the postmaster) start getting a rash of unsent mail. I can send mail to most everywhere, but it seems like it doesn't work for a few particular places. What I'm asking is, is this a problem my internet provider is causing, or are these other sites really out that often? I don't see what could be causing it because it seems to consistantly break at specific sites. Thanks for any help. -Jim Poling WVLink System Manager Buckhannon, WV USA JIM@WVLINK.MPL.COM Below is a queue show/full I did recently. Entry: 23, Origin: [Local] Status: IN-PROGRESS, size: 4 bytes Created: 23-FEB-1995 11:05:32.29, expires 25-MAR-1995 11:05:32.29 Last modified 23-FEB-1995 12:09:23.00 SMTP entry #25, status: READY, size: 4 bytes, waiting for retry until 23-FEB-1995 12:39:24.33 Created: 23-FEB-1995 11:05:38.75, expires 25-MAR-1995 11:05:32.29 Last modified 23-FEB-1995 12:09:24.35 Recipient #1: , Route=ab.wvnet.edu Error count=3 Last error: %SYSTEM-F-REJECT, connect to network object rejected Entry: 6, Origin: [Local] Status: IN-PROGRESS, size: 20 bytes Created: 23-FEB-1995 11:37:57.71, expires 25-MAR-1995 11:37:57.71 Last modified 23-FEB-1995 12:09:24.61 SMTP entry #7, status: READY, size: 20 bytes, waiting for retry until 23-FEB-1995 12:39:25.74 Created: 23-FEB-1995 11:38:06.85, expires 25-MAR-1995 11:37:57.71 Last modified 23-FEB-1995 12:09:25.77 Recipient #1: , Route=AB.WVNET.EDU Error count=2 Last error: %SYSTEM-F-REJECT, connect to network object rejected Entry: 1, Origin: [Local] Status: IN-PROGRESS, size: 20 bytes Created: 23-FEB-1995 11:58:17.73, expires 25-MAR-1995 11:58:17.73 Last modified 23-FEB-1995 11:59:42.61 SMTP entry #2, status: READY, size: 20 bytes, waiting for retry until 23-FEB-1995 12:30:59.01 Created: 23-FEB-1995 11:59:41.69, expires 25-MAR-1995 11:58:17.73 Last modified 23-FEB-1995 12:00:59.04 Recipient #1: , Route=nysernet.org Error count=1 Last error: %SYSTEM-F-TIMEOUT, device timeout Entry: 11, Origin: [Local] Status: IN-PROGRESS, size: 17 bytes Created: 23-FEB-1995 12:02:41.67, expires 25-MAR-1995 12:02:41.67 Last modified 23-FEB-1995 12:03:05.12 SMTP entry #12, status: READY, size: 17 bytes, waiting for retry until 23-FEB-1995 12:34:21.42 Created: 23-FEB-1995 12:03:04.08, expires 25-MAR-1995 12:02:41.67 Last modified 23-FEB-1995 12:04:21.44 Recipient #1: , Route=nysernet.org Error count=1 Last error: %SYSTEM-F-TIMEOUT, device timeout ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 09:13:16 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) Subject: Re: MAIL bounces, but nothing changed. Date: 24 Feb 1995 15:04:36 GMT Message-ID: <3iksi4$2gs@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <1995Feb23.124818.9208@eisner>, poling@eisner.decus.org (JIM POLING) writes: = Last error: %SYSTEM-F-REJECT, connect to network object rejected This means that the remote system is not accepting connect requests on the SMTP port (25), or at least that it's not accepting connect requests on that port from your machine. So the problem is neither with your system nor with your internet provider, but with the remote system. = Recipient #1: , Route=nysernet.org = Error count=1 = Last error: %SYSTEM-F-TIMEOUT, device timeout This one means that you're not getting a response soon enough to suit your system. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 24 Feb 1995 13:56:22 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: mvbinet@yogi.hns.com Subject: Re: Failed mail Date: 24 Feb 1995 10:38:10 GMT Message-ID: <3ikcui$4tt@hnssysb.hns.com> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Why not run the mail_verification procedure which I think is in the CONTRIB directory. I think it needs some modification (I don't run it) but it should send a mail to the originator to say when the message has been sent. Use the rule of thumb....no confirmation....problem sending? Mark In article <0098C201.9B689D20.3@hiaras.hia.nrc.ca>, "Russell O. Redman" writes: Subject: Re: Failed mail To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 11:42:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Jon Morgan Bob Christenson said that: [SNIP] Yes, they will often be returned, but often several days later. For an urgent message this might be too late. Yet I do not want to set the timeout any shorter because for most messages it is acceptable to wait a couple of days (over a weekend, for example) until the other system comes back online. It is usually wise to consider a message sent by your boss to be urgent, even if it is not. -- Jon Morgan Dr. R. O. Redman, . +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+------+ | Mark Van-Bellen E-Mails M_VANBELLEN%YOGI@HNSLTD.HNS.COM | | | Systems Engineer +-----------------------------------------+ | | Hughes Network Systems Ltd. | Telephone : +44 908 221122 extension 211 | | Milton Keynes, England. | Fax : +44 908 221127 | +-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ | The three faithful things in life are money, a dog, and an old woman. | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 14:24:09 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: kevin@ins.infonet.net (Kevin Houle) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Addressing to user@ip.ip.ip.ip Date: 24 Feb 1995 20:11:10 GMT Message-ID: <3ilegu$psh@insosf1.infonet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU We've notice that, under MX 4.1, a message can be addressed using IP numbers in the following format: mx%"user@111.111.111.111" MX accepts the address and routes the message to the correct IP numbered system. However, most remote sites seem to bounce this type of address as "no such host". Shouldn't the addressing format really be: mx%"user@[111.111.111.111]" Why does MX accept an invalid format? Kevin ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 16:17:49 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 17:14:17 EST From: smcneilly@fred.bridgew.edu Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098C792.856EBF40.30@fred.bridgew.edu> Subject: RE: from: is wrong... - a [1/1] John Selph writes: >Subj: from: is wrong... - a [1/1] > >We changed hostnames on a VAX here.. and for some reason it has >caused us the following problem. The machine seem to identify >itself as obusys, which is the LAT name. It should be saying >sci.obu.edu. You can see below, this causes the From line to be >incorrect. We have checked all the MX logicals and they are right. >I am thinking it's something about UCX.. but what and how do we >fix it? Any one have ideas? To check ucx, type SHOW LOG UCX*. The logicals you're interested in are UCX$INET_DOMAIN and UCX$INET_HOST. The value of UCX$INET_DOMAIN should be "obu.edu". The value of UCX$INET_HOST should be "sci", in this case. If they are wrong, then you can use DEFINE/SYSTEM to change them, but as a permanent solution you'll need to run @UCX$CONFIG and change the core environment. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Mc Neilly email: smcneilly@bridgew.edu Assistant Director Phone: 508-697-1236 Information Services Bridgewater State College Bridgewater, MA 02325 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 21:03:33 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: mvbinet@yogi.hns.com Subject: Re: administering mailing lists from another node Date: 24 Feb 1995 10:31:42 GMT Message-ID: <3ikcie$4tt@hnssysb.hns.com> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU I sussed this out thanks very much.... for anybody else that may be interested.... I edited the MLF_CONFIG.MCP command file so that it would look something like ! ! MX_DEVICE:[MESSAGING]MLF_CONFIG.MCP;10 ! Created: 17-JAN-1995 15:26:57.59 by MLF_CONFIG ! DEFINE LIST "ccb-team"- /OWNER="""vaxa::mark""@hnsltd.hns.com" - /ERRORS_TO="m_vanbellen%yogi@hnsltd.hns.com" - /DESCRIPTION="Configuration and Control Board Team" - /NOARCHIVE - /NOCASE - /PROTECTION=(S:RWED,O:RWED,G:RWD,W) >In article <3h5g75$1ut@hnssysb.hns.com>, mvbinet@yogi.hns.com writes: >=Is it possible to be a list owner on a node other than the one running >=MX? >=Ie. If I am user MARK on VAXA and want to add user ROBERT to mailing >=list TEST on node VAXB (running Decnet and MX), by sending from VAXA >= >=to : VAXB::MX%"test-request" >= >=Add ROBERT%VAXA >= >=The list owner is set to mark%vaxa@yogi.hns.com , but doesn't work because >=the source of the address appears as vaxa::mark to the mx mailer....How can >=I get round this....or can't I? +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+------+ | Mark Van-Bellen E-Mails M_VANBELLEN%YOGI@HNSLTD.HNS.COM | | | Systems Engineer +-----------------------------------------+ | | Hughes Network Systems Ltd. | Telephone : +44 908 221122 extension 211 | | Milton Keynes, England. | Fax : +44 908 221127 | +-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ | The three faithful things in life are money, a dog, and an old woman. | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 08:07:49 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 15:07:39 +0100 Message-ID: <9502271407.AA18773@magma> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: mx-list@wkuvx1.wku.edu From: broughton@magma.cgg-massy.fr (John Broughton) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: subscribe mxlist ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:50:56 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:51:19 CST From: Bob Christenson Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098C9B0.22B787E0.3@fcseng.frco.com> Subject: Re: Failed mail } } Yes, they will often be returned, but often several days later. For an urgent } message this might be too late. Yet I do not want to set the timeout any } shorter because for most messages it is acceptable to wait a couple of days } (over a weekend, for example) until the other system comes back online. } It is usually wise to consider a message sent by your boss to be urgent, even } if it is not. It is usually not wise to consider Email as an acceptable method of conveying urgent information especially by and to your boss! ;^) FWIW Email is the LAST method my boss uses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ // Bob Christenson, Sr. Sys Analyst _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // Fisher Controls Int., Inc. _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // R.A. Engel Technical Center _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ // Marshalltown, IA 50158 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // Voice Phone : (515) 754-3854 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ // FAX Phone : (515) 754-2831 _/ _/. _/ _/. _/_/_/_/_/. // Inet Address: rachri1@fcseng.frco.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 10:50:58 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: lee@hsh.com (Lee Havemann) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Mail Delivery problems with MX Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 11:03:59 GMT Message-ID: <1995Feb27.110359.1@hshvxa> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Greetings; We have just switched over from UUCP mail to MX mail (V4.1), and I am now having the following problem: When we send a report that is less than 132 characters long, it used to go fine. Now I have a bunch of messages stuck in the que, all with the following errors: Entry: 4, Origin: [Local] Status: IN-PROGRESS SMTP entry #5, status: READY Waiting for retry until: 24-FEB-1995 16:01:42.11 Recipient #1: , Route=caprica.com Error count=60, DNS errors=1 Last error: %SYSTEM-F-BADPARAM, bad parameter value I haven't figured out what the bad parameter is yet, but I am still looking! Like I said, this usedto work fine with UUCP, and it works with ELM on our 386BSD box, but it doesn't work with MX. What am I doing wrong??? Below is the MX_SMTP_LOG.log output on one of the failed transmissions. Any help would be graatly appreciated! The exit status on the following message is a %MX-E-NOCOMPLETE error, but with no clue as to why it was not completed. Is there something I forgot to set, or perhaps is there a newer version of MX that corrects this problem? 24-FEB-1995 15:35:54.50 Processing queue entry number 25 on node HSHVXA 24-FEB-1995 15:35:54.73 Recipient: , route=NYX.CS.DU.EDU 24-FEB-1995 15:35:54.73 SMTP_SEND: looking up host name NYX.CS.DU.EDU 24-FEB-1995 15:35:55.45 SMTP_SEND: DSN_MXLOOK status is 00000001 24-FEB-1995 15:35:55.60 SMTP_SEND: Attempting to start session with NYX.CS.DU.EDU [130.253.192.68] 24-FEB-1995 15:35:55.90 SMTP_SEND: Connected 24-FEB-1995 15:35:57.44 SMTP_SEND: Rcvd: 220 nyx.cs.du.edu Sendmail 4.1/SMI-4.1 ready at Fri, 24 Feb 95 13:39:32 MST 24-FEB-1995 15:35:57.48 SMTP_SEND: Sent: HELO hshvxa 24-FEB-1995 15:35:58.59 SMTP_SEND: Rcvd: 250 nyx.cs.du.edu Hello hshvxa (hshvxa.hsh.com), pleased to meet you 24-FEB-1995 15:35:58.59 SMTP_SEND: Sent: MAIL FROM: 24-FEB-1995 15:35:59.60 SMTP_SEND: Rcvd: 250 ... Sender ok 24-FEB-1995 15:35:59.60 SMTP_SEND: Sent: RCPT TO: 24-FEB-1995 15:36:01.97 SMTP_SEND: Rcvd: 250 ... Recipient ok 24-FEB-1995 15:36:02.00 SMTP_SEND: Sent: DATA 24-FEB-1995 15:36:02.89 SMTP_SEND: Rcvd: 354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself 24-FEB-1995 15:36:02.89 SMTP_SEND: Sent: Received: by hsh.com (MX V4.1 VAX) id 17; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 12:48:02 EST 24-FEB-1995 15:36:02.90 SMTP_SEND: Sent: Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 12:48:00 EST 24-FEB-1995 15:36:02.92 SMTP_SEND: Sent: From: Paul Havemann 24-FEB-1995 15:36:02.94 SMTP_SEND: Sent: To: PRKANE@NYX.CS.DU.EDU 24-FEB-1995 15:36:02.95 SMTP_SEND: Sent: Message-ID: <0098C76D.52678B60.17@hsh.com> 24-FEB-1995 15:36:02.95 SMTP_SEND: Sent: Subject: Your Order from HSH Associates 24-FEB-1995 15:36:02.96 SMTP_SEND: Sent: [115 lines deleted] 24-FEB-1995 15:36:06.79 SMTP_SEND: Sent: NMCR: National Mtg. Contract Rate (Dec) 7.75% <+.19> 15 Year Fixed Rate Mortgages.... 8.67% < .00> 24-FEB-1995 15:36:06.80 SMTP_SEND: Sent: 11COF: 11th District Cost of Funds (Dec) 4.589% <+.222> 1 Year Adjustable Rate Mortgages 6.80% <+.07> 24-FEB-1995 15:36:06.80 SMTP_SEND: Sent: ============================== NUMBERS IN ARE THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE PREVIOUS CHANGE ============================== 24-FEB-1995 15:36:06.80 SMTP_SEND: Sent: 24-FEB-1995 15:36:06.90 SMTP send failed, sts=0C27804A, sts2=00000014 24-FEB-1995 15:36:06.90 Recipient status=0C27804A for 24-FEB-1995 15:36:07.43 1 rcpts need retry, next try 24-FEB-1995 16:06:07.43 24-FEB-1995 15:36:07.45 *** End of processing pass *** Lee Havemann, Comp Ops Dir. HSH Associates (201) 838-3330 Internet: lee@hsh.com Compuserve: 70410,3507 AOL: HSH Assoc "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of anyone else, including myself." ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 11:18:47 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 12:20:54 -0500 From: jing@scus1.ctstateu.edu (Nai Jing Luo) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <9502271720.AA16955@scus1.ctstateu.edu> To: MX-List@wkuvx1.wku.edu Subject: Re: Failed mail CC: unsubscribe jing@scus1.ctstateu.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 17:49:18 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: redirecting private digest to private list Message-ID: <1995Feb24.145058@lucy.merrimack.edu> From: rand@lucy.merrimack.edu () Date: Fri, 24 Feb 95 14:50:58 EST Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU I have a private list (IE, only subscribers can post to it). I also have a digest version of the list. Other than adding -digest subscribers to the regular list /NOMAIL, how can I enable the -digest subscribers post to the regular list? cheers, rand ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 18:26:27 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 18:26:13 CST From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Message-ID: <0098C9F8.1150B493.22@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: redirecting private digest to private list rand@lucy.merrimack.edu () writes: > >I have a private list (IE, only subscribers can post to it). I also have >a digest version of the list. Other than adding -digest subscribers >to the regular list /NOMAIL, how can I enable the -digest subscribers >post to the regular list? > That's it, unfortunately. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@ALPHA.WKU.EDU (or goathunter@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:59:18 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: lee@hsh.com (Lee Havemann) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: Mail Delivery problems with MX Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 09:59:23 GMT Message-ID: <1995Feb28.095923.1@hshvxa> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <1995Feb27.110359.1@hshvxa>, lee@hsh.com (Lee Havemann) writes: > Greetings; > > We have just switched over from UUCP mail to MX mail (V4.1), and I am now having > the following problem: [deleted problem] Forgot one of the important things - VMS Version 5.5-2!! Thanks, -Lee Lee Havemann, Comp Ops Dir. HSH Associates (201) 838-3330 Internet: lee@hsh.com Compuserve: 70410,3507 AOL: HSH Assoc "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of anyone else, including myself." ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 18:38:19 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Address rewriting advice sought Message-ID: From: cendjm@cend1c6.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Dave Morriss) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 10:21:59 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Summary: How to change UK CBS addresses to standard MX addresses Details: In the next two months we are moving from a cluster of VAX 8700s running the UK Coloured Book mail software to an AlphaServer 2100 on which we wish to run OpenVMS 6.1 and MX 4.1 The changeover will take place as a "big bang" at Easter, at which time we'll move all user files. After the change our users will find that the mail addresses they type to the "To:" prompt will change from: cbs%uk-order-site::user to mx%"user@world-order-site" eg cbs%uk.ac.hw.caledonia::cendjm becomes mx%"cendjm@caledonia.hw.ac.uk" This is fine (at last we'll be in step with the rest of the world), except for two things: 1. they'll have to remember to use the new addresses, and 2. they'll be unable to REPLY to mail received before the change. Ideally I would like to make this changeover as painless as possible (given that pain for the users invariably becomes pain for the support staff), and implement a means of converting from one style of address to the other. Obviously the "cbs%" portion of the specification can be made to invoke MX, but I am at a loss as to how to translate one address format to the other. As far as I can see in my initial experimentation, DEFINE REWRITE_RULE cannot handle this type of situation. Is this a candidate for building a local address rewriting routine? Has anyone else covered this ground (or decided not to)? All advice is welcome. Dave -- David Morriss, | Tel: +44 (0)131 451 3262 (DDI) Computing Services, | FAX: +44 (0)131 451 3261 Heriot-Watt University, | cendjm@caledonia.hw.ac.uk (INTERNET) Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 18:50:12 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Help! JNET interface bombs out Message-ID: <3iv774$ipg@hearst.cac.psu.edu> From: ken@psuedvax.ed.psu.edu (Kenneth J. Hoover) Date: 28 Feb 1995 13:07:48 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Help! I reinstalled MX 4.1 when I switched from CMU to UCX as my TCP/IP transport, and now the JNET interface won't start up. Here's the error information from the MX_JNET_.LOG file: I have the BITEARN NODES and XMAILER.NAMES files in the proper location. Anyone have any ideas? ----------- begin 28-FEB-1995 08:02:51.49: MX Jnet Intfc (pid 00000758) starting 28-FEB-1995 08:02:51.80: MX Jnet Intfc Info: MX_JNET_DIR:MXBITNET.MAILERS not found - must rebuild. %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=04, virtual address=7FEDA67C, PC=0008248C, PSL=0BC00004 %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows module name routine name line rel PC abs PC 0008248C 0008248C BITEARN_NODES get_entry 1281 000000C7 00003B63 BITEARN_NODES go 1431 000001CD 00003FC9 BITEARN_NODES JNET_build_table 1585 0000030D 00004639 BITEARN_NODES JNET_BUILD_MXBITNET_MAILERS 1605 0000000A 00004672 BITNET READ_BITNET_HOST_TABLE 158 00000074 00008298 PROCESS INIT 166 00000138 0000589C MX_JNET MX_JNET 40 00000035 000046A9 MAILER job terminated at 28-FEB-1995 08:02:53.93 ------------ end - Ken Hoover ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 22:02:52 CST Sender: owner-mx-list@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 20:55:06 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Stacks Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: Address rewriting advice sought To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU CC: stacks@adpce.lrk.ar.us Message-ID: <0098CAD6.07BDA1A0.27@adpce.lrk.ar.us> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT writes: >Details: [snip] >This is fine (at last we'll be in step with the rest of the world), >except for two things: > 1. they'll have to remember to use the new addresses, and > 2. they'll be unable to REPLY to mail received before the change. > >Ideally I would like to make this changeover as painless as possible >(given that pain for the users invariably becomes pain for the support >staff), and implement a means of converting from one style of address to >the other. > Why not give extensive seminars / classes / whatever to your users as well as distributing documentation describing the changes to your users. This may or may not lessen some of the support headaches but it will at least CYA and you can at least ask if they have read the documentation describing the new format... Seems to me that there is only so much you can do for the users before they have to do something for themselves... Yes; there are a whole bunch of pros and cons on this, but I prefer to treat users as adults as much as possible. -- YMMV -- 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 voice: 501-570-2174 fax: 501-562-4632 email: stacks@adpce.lrk.ar.us