Archive-Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 10:05:40 CDT Message-ID: <9205141455.AA06469@uw1301.millsaps.edu> To: "George D. Greenwade" CC: briant@teleride.on.ca, mx-list@RPIECSVX.BITNET, hornlo@uw1301.millsaps.edu Subject: Re: !@osprey.teleride.on.ca ? Date: Thu, 14 May 92 09:55:14 -0500 From: "Larry Olin Horn" Reply-To: "Larry Olin Horn" VAXmail distribution lists *can* have comments in them -- we use them all the time. Nightly we build distribution lists of "active" users based on their VMS group and/or their classification (student, faculty, etc.) They all have the form: ! xxxx.DIS - built on dd-mmm-yyyy - logins within 30 days user1 ! real name (dept) user2 ! real name (dept) .... We don't have any MX addresses in these, however, so I don't know what affect that would have on VAXmail processing. loh Larry Olin Horn / Systems Manager / Millsaps College / Jackson, MS 39210 hornlo@uw1301.millsaps.edu / (601) 974-1142 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 10:21:38 CDT To: mx-list@RPIECSVX.BITNET Date: Thu, 14 May 92 09:55:14 -0500 From: "Larry Olin Horn" Reply-To: "Larry Olin Horn" Sender: mx-list-request@RPIECSVX.BITNET Message-ID: <9205141455.AA06469@uw1301.millsaps.edu> Subject: Re: !@osprey.teleride.on.ca ? VAXmail distribution lists *can* have comments in them -- we use them all the time. Nightly we build distribution lists of "active" users based on their VMS group and/or their classification (student, faculty, etc.) They all have the form: ! xxxx.DIS - built on dd-mmm-yyyy - logins within 30 days user1 ! real name (dept) user2 ! real name (dept) .... We don't have any MX addresses in these, however, so I don't know what affect that would have on VAXmail processing. loh Larry Olin Horn / Systems Manager / Millsaps College / Jackson, MS 39210 hornlo@uw1301.millsaps.edu / (601) 974-1142 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 10:37:14 CDT Message-ID: Date: 14 May 92 09:45:00 EST From: "Brian Tillman, Facilities, x8425" Reply-To: "Brian Tillman, Facilities, x8425" Subject: RE: !@osprey.teleride.on.ca ? To: "bed_gdg" CC: "mx-list" George D. Greenwade, Ph.D. (bed_gdg@SHSU.edu) writes: >The nature of a VMS .DIS list is that it has one address on one line -- >period; there is no error checking or any safeguard. Moreover, the one >address on one line begins at the first non-null character, extends over >all non-null characters, and ends at the first following null character (a >space). It's perfectly legal to have lines begining with exclamation points in mailing lists. According to VMS mail documentation: ---------------------------------------------------------- Creating a Distribution List A distribution list is a file that contains a list of users. Distribution lists are not created within Mail. Use an editor, such as EVE, to create your distribution lists. When you create a distribution list, type one user name per line. You can also include the names of other distribution lists by specifying an at sign (@) followed by the name of the distribution list. Exclamation points (!) delimit comments; Mail will ignore everything to the right of the exclamation point. For example: ! PROJECT INTEREST DISTRIBUTION LIST OZ::NOLAN TUTTLE DARCY::MORRIS @PROJECT !PROJECT TEAM -------------------------------------------------- While what you say about how MX is behaving may be true, I would contend it's incorrect behavior. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 11:04:38 CDT To: mx-list@RPIECSVX.BITNET Date: 14 May 92 09:45:00 EST From: "Brian Tillman, Facilities, x8425" Reply-To: "Brian Tillman, Facilities, x8425" Sender: mx-list-request@RPIECSVX.BITNET Message-ID: Subject: RE: !@osprey.teleride.on.ca ? George D. Greenwade, Ph.D. (bed_gdg@SHSU.edu) writes: >The nature of a VMS .DIS list is that it has one address on one line -- >period; there is no error checking or any safeguard. Moreover, the one >address on one line begins at the first non-null character, extends over >all non-null characters, and ends at the first following null character (a >space). It's perfectly legal to have lines begining with exclamation points in mailing lists. According to VMS mail documentation: ---------------------------------------------------------- Creating a Distribution List A distribution list is a file that contains a list of users. Distribution lists are not created within Mail. Use an editor, such as EVE, to create your distribution lists. When you create a distribution list, type one user name per line. You can also include the names of other distribution lists by specifying an at sign (@) followed by the name of the distribution list. Exclamation points (!) delimit comments; Mail will ignore everything to the right of the exclamation point. For example: ! PROJECT INTEREST DISTRIBUTION LIST OZ::NOLAN TUTTLE DARCY::MORRIS @PROJECT !PROJECT TEAM -------------------------------------------------- While what you say about how MX is behaving may be true, I would contend it's incorrect behavior. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 14:49:56 CDT From: Subject: Re: !@osprey.teleride.on.ca ? Message-ID: Reply-To: madison@vms.ecs.rpi.edu References: <9205141455.AA06469@uw1301.millsaps.edu> Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 17:30:29 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Yes, MX is not handling comments in .DIS files properly. I have already worked out a fix for this and will shortly be issuing another maintenance update. -Matt -- Matthew Madison, Systems Programmer | Internet: madison@vms.ecs.rpi.edu Engineering Computing Services | Bitnet: MADISON@RPIECSVX Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | Troy, New York 12180-3590 USA | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 00:11:52 CDT From: jrees@vax.oxford.ac.uk Reply-To: jrees@vax.oxford.ac.uk Subject: Re: Apparent address substitution Message-ID: <1992May14.132110.6022@vax.oxford.ac.uk> Date: 14 May 92 12:21:09 GMT References: <1992May13.230136.6012@vax.oxford.ac.uk> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Hi, Well, to follow up on my own problem, it looks as though the mess of substituted addressing is due to the interface between MX/smtp on our VAXes, and the murky world of CBS on the rest of JANET, and since if we have smtp mail and nothing to do with JANET then we are unknown to the rest of the UK except by the ox.ac.uk gateway. Seems like the VAXes running MX understand this, but the unix machines in particular but maybe everything else running CBS cannot deal with us. So the solutions don't look as though they are part of MX, unless we can set our from header to be something else that these mailers do know about. Or make the mail gateway do something helpful. Apologies for the red herring. regards, jasper Jasper Rees Sir William Dunn School of Pathology Oxford University jasper@vax.path.ox.ac.uk jrees@vax.ox.ac.uk ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 11:31:38 CDT Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 11:31:29 CDT From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095A9CB.7859E420.44@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: Test message. Please ignore. Sorry to bother you---this is just a test to see how the new list/gateway are working. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 14:26:45 CDT Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 14:26:39 CDT From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095A9E3.F0B8C900.218@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: The new MX-List home Greetings all. MX-List has now officially been moved from RPI to WKU. The new list address is MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET. If you're an Internet site and you have trouble reaching WKUVX1.BITNET (which you shouldn't, since you're running MX), you can try one of the following addresses: MX-List%WKUVX1.BITNET@ukcc.uky.edu MX-List%WKUVX1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu Administrative requests should be send to LISTSERV@WKUVX1.BITNET. The archives are available from ARCHIVES@WKUVX1.BITNET (send a message containing SEND MX-LIST.yyyy-mm, where "yyyy" is the year and "mm" is the month. For more info, send HELP. The archives are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.spc.edu in directory [.MACRO32.LISTS.MX]. WKU is currently trying to get connected to the Internet. We have our net number and are trying to figure out the best/cheapest way for us to connect. I'll keep you posted about the status. Question (please reply to me and I'll summarize next week): do you want the "From:" line to be "MX-List" or do you want it to remain the same as it is now (the original sender)? Setting it to the list encourages discussion, I think, but could allow for some unintentional traffic. I'd like to change it to MX-List; if I receive more YESes than NOs, or don't get any responses, I'll go ahead and change it. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 15:23:05 CDT Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 15:23:00 CDT From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095A9EB.D00E6220.289@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: RPI is forwarding MX-list mail to WKUVX1 In private mail, "John F. Sandhoff" writes: > >Is RPI willing to maintain mx-list@vms.ecs.rpi.edu as an alias pointing >to the real list during a reasonable transition period? > I forgot to mention this. The answer is, Yes, RPI is currently forwarding all MX-LIST and MX-LIST-REQUEST mail to WKUVX1, so if you forget, it'll still get where it's going. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 15:40:29 CDT Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 12:37:08 PST From: Carl J Lydick Reply-To: Carl J Lydick Subject: Test message; please ignore Sender: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU To: mx-list@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU Message-ID: <0095A9D4.A4246FE0.27110@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> Sorry to bother you. This is a test message to confirm that I've set up forwarding to the new MX list properly. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 15:51:45 CDT Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 14:52 MDT From: Stephen LaBelle - MSCD Reply-To: Stephen LaBelle - MSCD Subject: Is MX compatible with Fusion from Network Research? To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Hello, I would like to know if MX is compatible with Fusion. I run Fusion from Network Research on my VAX 6310. Don't laugh too hard, Fusion is a very robust TCP/IP package, unfortunately SIGH... it has numerous problems. Their intent was good??? Laugh now if you wish. I have it and am curious about the compatibility, it is not referenced in the docs which most likely means no support. For anyone familar with Fusion I use VMS mail NOT NRC mail, that might also have bearing on the answer. Thanks, Steve ################################################ # Stephen LaBelle # # Systems Programmer # # Metropolitan State College of Denver # # Denver, Colorado # ################################################ # Bitnet : LABELLES@MSCD.BITNET # # Internet : labelles@zeno.msc.colorado.edu # ################################################ Live long and prosper..... ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 16 May 1992 10:10:39 CDT From: goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET Reply-To: goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Re: stupid, stupid questions Message-ID: <1992May16.083148.1550@wkuvx1.bitnet> Date: 16 May 92 13:31:48 GMT References: <0095A873.931637E0.32285@CCVAX.CCS.CSUS.EDU> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0095A873.931637E0.32285@CCVAX.CCS.CSUS.EDU>, syssand@CCVAX.CCS.CSUS.EDU (John F. Sandhoff) writes: > > Under MX 3.0 (yeah, I'll install 3.1 as soon as the semester's over) > how do I enable the LOCAL accounting file (MX_LOCAL_DIR:MX_LOCAL_ACC.DAT)? > The SMTP log exists but nothing for LOCAL. What does LOCAL log anyway > (maybe there's nothing to log?). > MCP> SET LOCAL/ACCOUNTING The MX_LOCAL_ACC file contains a record of all mail delivered locally by MX (in essence, all incoming mail). > What I need to do is analyze incoming mail by user so I know how bad > it'll be when we expire the user accounts next month. It seems that to > be polite I need to determine mailing list memberships and signoff > those accounts that are getting deleted. Comments on how others deal > with this? > I'm about to be doing the same thing. I use MXSUM to generate summaries of the LOCAL accounting file so I know who has been receiving network mail. MXSUM was written by a student who worked for me; you can get it by sending the command SEND MXSUM in the body of a mail message to FILESERV@WKUVX1.BITNET. It's also in the [.CONTRIB] directory in MX, I think. > ALSO: suggestion for next round of the documentation: prepare a table > of ALL the logical names that MX uses. A section in the management guide > that lists logical name, brief purpose, and reference to more info (if > any) would save lots of page flipping. > Since I'll probably be doing the next round, I'll try to remember to do this. > Lastly, can someone explain how to decode the TLV format of the message > files? I had a utility in the pre-3.0 days that nicely read these files > for debugging but TLV broke it and it's not intuitive to me as to how > to extract the lengths. > Sorry, I haven't done anything with this yet. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 12:11:47 CDT Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 12:11:41 CDT From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095AC2C.957E2B20.1292@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: List "From:" address has been changed Well, the votes were definitely in favor of switching the MX-List "From:" line to MX, so I've done so (as you can see). Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 09:32:02 CDT Sender: burnett@PANAM.BITNET Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 09:31:10 CDT From: "James F. Burnett--University of Texas-PanAm" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-LIST@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095ACDF.5344F3C0.26816@PANAM1.PANAM.EDU> Subject: Where is version 3.1B ? I'm looking for a copy of MX V3.1B. I currently have V3.1 installed but would like to upgrade to 3.1B this weekend. I tried the usual FTP to VMS.ECS.RPI.EDU but received a "no access" message when I tried to CD to the [MX] directory. Since the MX-List has been moved, I was wondering if I missed something along the way. Was the software moved also ? Thanks for any help. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + James F. Burnett INTERNET: PANAM.EDU + + Programmer Analyst I BITNET : PANAM.BITNET + + University of Texas-Pan American Edinburg, TX + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 10:01:00 CDT Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 10:00:54 CDT From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095ACE3.7AC9FFE0.2028@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: RE: Where is version 3.1B ? "James F. Burnett--University of Texas-PanAm" writes: > >I'm looking for a copy of MX V3.1B. I currently have V3.1 installed >but would like to upgrade to 3.1B this weekend. I tried the usual >FTP to VMS.ECS.RPI.EDU but received a "no access" message when I >tried to CD to the [MX] directory. Since the MX-List has been moved, >I was wondering if I missed something along the way. Was the software >moved also ? Thanks for any help. > The software is, for the moment, still at RPI. It's in the [.MX] directory, not the [MX] directory. Did you try that? Matt and I will be moving the software soon---I'll post a message about that when it happens. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 10:23:50 CDT Sender: burnett@PANAM.BITNET Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 10:19:02 CDT From: "James F. Burnett--University of Texas-PanAm" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095ACE6.02E67140.26951@PANAM1.PANAM.EDU> Subject: RE: Where is version 3.1B ? "James F. Burnett--University of Texas-PanAm" writes: > >I'm looking for a copy of MX V3.1B. I currently have V3.1 installed >but would like to upgrade to 3.1B this weekend. I tried the usual >FTP to VMS.ECS.RPI.EDU but received a "no access" message when I >tried to CD to the [MX] directory. Since the MX-List has been moved, >I was wondering if I missed something along the way. Was the software >moved also ? Thanks for any help. > >>>The software is, for the moment, still at RPI. It's in the [.MX] >>>directory, not the [MX] directory. Did you try that? >>> >>>Matt and I will be moving the software soon---I'll post a message about >>>that when it happens. >>>Hunter Thanks Hunter, no I didn't try that but I will. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + James F. Burnett INTERNET: PANAM.EDU + + Programmer Analyst I BITNET : PANAM.BITNET + + University of Texas-Pan American Edinburg, TX + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 16:13:30 CDT Sender: meyer@ifn.ing.tu-bs.de Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 23:10:37 MET From: Eckart Meyer Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095AD51.CDA9C7E0.4673@ifn.ing.tu-bs.de> Subject: Case of username This only partly MX-related: What is the general policy about the case of a username. With VMS, this doesn't matter, but what should be the behaviour of a UNIX host? In general: should a host accept a username in username@host.domain regardless of the case? Background is the Mail-Patch in .CONTRIB which allows to omitt the MX%"" syntax and instead simply user@host. But then it is converted to uppercase. Since the last couple of years we had no trouble, but with a newly connect UUCP-Host (Sun) the problem arises. They only accept the username as registered on the host and they are all lowercase of course. Question: Should i urge them to convert incoming Mails or should I convert names on my system? Doing this with MX is apparently not so easy. I can write a NAME_CONVERSION routine, but then I have to register all users at the Sun or unconditionally convert all names to lowercase, which might be not a good idea if eventually someone *needs* uppercase. Catch 22. BTW: The best would be a VMS-Mail interface which preserves the case! -Eckart ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eckart Meyer Address: Schleinitzstr. 23 Inst. f. Nachrichtentechnik 3300 Braunschweig Technical University of Braunschweig Germany Phone: +49 531 391 2454 E-Mail: meyer@ifn.ing.tu-bs.de FAX: +49 531 391 5192 I7100501@DBSTU1.BITNET (not preferred) VMSmail: PSI%+26245050351130::MEYER (DATEX-P) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 21:08:07 CDT Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 22:00:12 EDT From: "Jonathan E. Hardis" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: RE: Case of username To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: meyer@ifn.ing.tu-bs.de, hardis@vax844.phy.nist.gov Message-ID: <0095AD47.F7595D80.1470@vax844.phy.nist.gov> > What is the general policy about the case of a username. With VMS, > this doesn't matter, but what should be the behaviour of a UNIX host? > In general: should a host accept a username in username@host.domain > regardless of the case? From RFC 821 (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol): Commands and replies are not case sensitive. That is, a command or reply word may be upper case, lower case, or any mixture of upper and lower case. Note that this is not true of mailbox user names. For some hosts the user name is case sensitive, and SMTP implementations must take case to preserve the case of user names as they appear in mailbox arguments. Host names are not case sensitive. In other words: No. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 23:24:06 CDT From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Re: Case of username Message-ID: <1992May20.031455.3462@sura.net> Date: 20 May 92 03:14:55 GMT References: <0095AD47.F7595D80.1470@vax844.phy.nist.gov> Sender: (USENET News System) To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0095AD47.F7595D80.1470@vax844.phy.nist.gov> "Jonathan E. Hardis" writes: >From RFC 821 (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol): > > Commands and replies are not case sensitive. That is, a command or > reply word may be upper case, lower case, or any mixture of upper and > lower case. Note that this is not true of mailbox user names. For > some hosts the user name is case sensitive, and SMTP implementations > must take case to preserve the case of user names as they appear in > mailbox arguments. Host names are not case sensitive. > >In other words: > > No. My interpretation of that paragraph would be that a host can accept its own usernames in any case, but is not obliged to. Other hosts cannot assume that it will. -- Joseph Malcolm (Yes, with two l's, dammit!) jmalcolm@sura.net ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 11:10:49 CDT From: Subject: Announcing MX V3.1 revision C Message-ID: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 15:35:37 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET I have just issued another release OF MX V3.1, called revision C. It is primarily a maintenance release, but also adds a couple of new features. V3.1C incorporates the following repairs to defects in V3.1B: 1. Comments in VMS Mail distribution files were not getting handled properly, causing unusual-looking To headers in messages that used such comments. 2. Syntactically invalid host names in addresses entered via VMS Mail could cause the Router to do unusual things if a domain expander was being used. The Router now bypasses domain expansion on syntactically invalid addresses. MX V3.1C also includes the following two new features: 1. When using MX with DECUS UUCP, you can now have the MX_RMAIL program pass addresses through UUCP rewrite rules before MX does its standard UUCP->822 conversion. The V3.1C release notes explain how to enable this new feature. 2. The NAME_CONVERSION interface now supports the use of a FULL_CONVERT routine for username->nickname translations. The FULL_CONVERT routine allows you to convert a local username into a full RFC822-type address (as opposed to CONVERT, which just allows you to alter the username part of the address). The MX Programmer's Guide has been updated to explain this change, and a new example NAME_CONVERSION.C is provided to illustrate it. The MX031 save sets in [ANONYMOUS.MX.MX031] on vms.ecs.rpi.edu comprise the V3.1C kit (save sets A,B,C,F,I,J,K, and L are changed over V3.1B). There is also a new kit, MX_REVC_UPGRADE031, for upgrading your existing V3.1 through V3.1B installation to revision C. I will _not_ be putting the new kits up on my file server, due to its imminent shutdown; perhaps Hunter will put them up on his. This revision repairs all defects in MX V3.1 for which I have reports. Later, -Matt -- Matthew Madison, Systems Programmer | Internet: madison@vms.ecs.rpi.edu Engineering Computing Services | Bitnet: MADISON@RPIECSVX Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | Troy, New York 12180-3590 USA | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 04:38:44 CDT From: Subject: Strange Domain Expander behaviour Message-ID: <1992May21.085056.2676@news.Hawaii.Edu> Date: 21 May 92 08:50:56 GMT Sender: (News Service) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Today one of my users complained that his mail was not getting through to a particular Canadian site. I tried my favourite debugging trick, a "loop" message, with the following result as reported by the ROUTER debug log: (lines broken for readability) 20-MAY-1992 22:17:54.00 %PROCESS, Processing entry number 7934 20-MAY-1992 22:17:54.72 %PROCESS, Status from READ_INFO was 00000001 20-MAY-1992 22:17:54.72 %PROCESS, Message originated in VMS Mail. 20-MAY-1992 22:17:54.75 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on envelope addresses. 20-MAY-1992 22:17:54.90 %PROCESS, ... for expanded vela.astro.utoronto.ca to vela.astro.utoronto.ca.89.100.128.in-addr.arpa 20-MAY-1992 22:17:54.91 %PROCESS, will run domain expander on message headers. 20-MAY-1992 22:17:55.40 %PROCESS, ... for hps!jach.hawaii.edu@vela.astro.utoronto.ca expanded vela.astro.utoronto.ca to vela.astro.utoronto.ca.89.100.128.in-addr.arpa 20-MAY-1992 22:17:57.63 %PROCESS, Finished VMSmail-origin preprocessing. 20-MAY-1992 22:17:57.64 %PROCESS, Recipient #0: 20-MAY-1992 22:17:57.66 %REWRITE, No rewrite rules matched 20-MAY-1992 22:18:05.48 %FINDPATH, Site-spec expand on vela.astro.utoronto.ca.89.100.128.in-addr.arpa err=00000870 20-MAY-1992 22:18:05.48 %FINDPATH, domain name VELA.ASTRO.UTORONTO.CA.89.100.128.IN-ADDR.ARPA matched path pattern * 20-MAY-1992 22:18:05.49 %PROCESS, Rewrote as - next hop vela.astro.utoronto.ca.89.100.128.in-addr.arpa, path ^^^^ **** No path here - why? **** 20-MAY-1992 22:18:05.78 %PROCESS, Adding to SMTP path: . 20-MAY-1992 22:18:06.48 %PROCESS, Path SMTP gets 1 rcpts, entry number 7935 The DNS returns a proper address for vela.astro.utoronto.ca: $ ns/type=mx vela.astro.utoronto.ca Server: LOCALHOST Address: 127.0.0.1 Non-authoritative answer: VELA.ASTRO.UTORONTO.CA preference = 0, mail exchanger = vela.astro.utoronto.ca Authoritative answers can be found from: CA nameserver = RELAY.CDNNET.CA CA nameserver = NNSC.NSF.NET CA nameserver = CLOUSO.CRIM.CA CA nameserver = UGW.UTCS.UTORONTO.CA vela.astro.utoronto.ca internet address = 128.100.89.1 vela.astro.utoronto.ca internet address = 128.100.75.23 RELAY.CDNNET.CA internet address = 192.73.5.1 NNSC.NSF.NET internet address = 128.89.1.178 CLOUSO.CRIM.CA internet address = 192.26.210.1 UGW.UTCS.UTORONTO.CA internet address = 128.100.102.3 UGW.UTCS.UTORONTO.CA internet address = 128.100.100.3 This is the only site for which I have ever seen this behaviour. Can anyone out there help (Hunter?, Matt?) Thanks, ______________________________________________________________________________ Henry Stilmack ) Computing Systems Manager ) "Haven't you heard, UK/Netherlands/Canada Joint Astronomy Centre ) it's a battle of words - 665 Komohana St., Hilo, HI 96720 ) and most of them are lies..." hps@jach.Hawaii.Edu 808-969-6530 ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 09:15:26 CDT Subject: Re: Strange Domain Expander behaviour Message-ID: <9g8v+m_@rpi.edu> From: Date: 21 May 92 13:43:12 GMT Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET References: <1992May21.085056.2676@news.Hawaii.Edu> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <1992May21.085056.2676@news.Hawaii.Edu>, hps@jach.hawaii.edu (Henry Stilmack - JAC System Mgr.) writes: >Today one of my users complained that his mail was not getting through >to a particular Canadian site. I tried my favourite debugging trick, a >"loop" message, with the following result as reported by the ROUTER >debug log: [...] >20-MAY-1992 22:17:54.90 %PROCESS, ... for > expanded > vela.astro.utoronto.ca to vela.astro.utoronto.ca.89.100.128.in-addr.arpa Looks like their DNS information is screwed up. The domain expander does its work by doing a name->address lookup, then doing the reverse address->name lookup. For vela.astro.utoronto.ca, address 128.100.89.1, the reverse lookup appears to return incorrect information: $ MULTINET NSLOOK Default Server: LOCALHOST Address: 127.0.0.1 > 128.100.89.1 Server: LOCALHOST Address: 127.0.0.1 Name: vela.astro.utoronto.ca.89.100.128.in-addr.arpa Address: 128.100.89.1 -Matt -- Matthew Madison, Systems Programmer | Internet: madison@vms.ecs.rpi.edu Engineering Computing Services | Bitnet: MADISON@RPIECSVX Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | Troy, New York 12180-3590 USA | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 09:45:44 CDT From: Subject: Problem with unknown port 25. Message-ID: Date: 21 May 92 14:00:49 GMT Sender: (Math Department) Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Hi there in MX land, we're using the MX mailing system V3.0A with CMU/Tek-IP V6.5 on our LAVC running VAX/VMS 5.3-1. For about 3 month all things worked fine. There is now a problem, I'm wondering about: In the TCP_ACTIVITY.LOG of the boot node running the MX "SMTP Server" process are often a lot of entries "... SYN received for unknown port 25 from <...>". Looking with IPNCP NETSTAT at the ports says that the foreign host is for a long time in the LISTEN state. I'm in doubt if this is normal behavior. Incoming mail will be rejected. As a first attempt of a workaround, I restart the MX mailing system. This helps for a couple of hours! We've always MX started after CMU/Tek-IP. Please, can anybody of the gurus tell me what's there going wrong. Thanks in advance, Karl-Heinz. _______________________________________________________________ Dipl.-Ing. Karl-Heinz Dittberner | Address: Arnimallee 22 Dept. Scientific Data Processing | D-1000 Berlin 33 c/o Free University of Berlin | Phone: (+4930) 838 2531 E-Mail: dit@vaxser.grumed.fu-berlin.de (Internet) dit@vaxser.dnet.fu-berlin.de (Internet) PSI%45050230201::dittberner (VMS-Mail) ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 11:08:22 CDT Sender: vandreser@sgbsn Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 10:04:16 EDT From: Tom Van Dreser 303-273-8596 USGS-BGRA Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095AE76.47F06AC0.2376@sgbsn.cr.usgs.gov> Subject: Protocol error at my host?! Dear Fellow MX'ers This morning I received the message below and I don't really have a clue as to what may be wrong. Is there a problem? No one else has ever complained to me before about this problem. Thank you all for any help. ************************************************************************ From: MX%"postmaster@apple.com" 21-MAY-1992 01:18:09.81 To: VANDRESER CC: Subj: mailer configuration error Return-Path: Received: from apple.com by SGBSN.CR.USGS.GOV (MX V3.1B) with SMTP; Thu, 21 May 1992 01:18:04 MDT Received: by apple.com (5.61/10-Dec-1991-eef) id AA14556; Thu, 21 May 92 00:12:22 -0700 for Date: Thu, 21 May 92 00:12:22 -0700 Message-ID: <9205210712.AA14556@apple.com> From: The Apple Computer Postmaster Subject: mailer configuration error To: postmaster@sgbsn.cr.usgs.gov Dear Fellow Postmaster, Enclosed is part of the sendmail log from apple.com which indicates a protocol error at your host, or at a host that you are forwarding mail on behalf of. It is apparently emitting E-mail addresses which do not have a fully qualified domain name, or are not the official (canonical) name of the host in the address. For every address in a message, the address is of the form "local-part@domain", and "domain" must always be fully qualified (e.g. "user@foo" is unqualified; "user@foo.edu" is properly qualified), and must be the official (canonical) host name (not an alias or CNAME), as required by RFC821, RFC822, RFC974, and RFC1123. E-mail with unqualified addresses cannot be replied to by its unlucky recipients. This means the users of the misconfigured host are not able to get replies to their E-mail. If this error is local to your host, please endeavor to fix it as soon as possible. If this error is at a host which is not your responsibility, it would be appreciated if you forwarded this letter to the responsible persons at the improperly configured host. yours for better interoperability on the Internet, Erik E. Fair Postmaster Apple Computer, Inc. May 20 07:49:04 apple sendmail[23719]: from= unparseable, received from sgbsn.cr.usgs.gov ************************************************************************ Tom Van Dreser vandreser@sgbsn.cr.usgs.gov ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 11:13:39 CDT Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 11:13:25 CDT From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095AE7F.F10B0A80.5594@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: New ftp home for MX kit! The official home of the MX savesets is now ftp.spc.edu [192.107.46.27] in the directory [ANONYMOUS.MX]. The mailing list archive files have also been moved there (from [.MACRO32.LISTS.MX]). I'm not sure how long they'll still be available from RPI; Matt leaves June 12, so it'll be before then! 8-) I'm working on making MX available from my fileserver, but haven't completed that yet. I'll post another message when that's done. FYI: All of Matt's other utilities are also available from ftp.spc.edu in the directory [.MADISON]. I plan to make most of them available from my fileserver soon. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 12:26:09 CDT From: Subject: Re: Problem with unknown port 25. Message-ID: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET References: Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 16:39:29 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article , dit@vaxser.grumed.fu-berlin.de (K.-H. Dittberner) writes: >we're using the MX mailing system V3.0A with >CMU/Tek-IP V6.5 on our LAVC running VAX/VMS 5.3-1. > >For about 3 month all things worked fine. >There is now a problem, I'm wondering about: > >In the TCP_ACTIVITY.LOG of the boot node running >the MX "SMTP Server" process are often a lot of >entries >"... SYN received for unknown port 25 from <...>". > >Looking with IPNCP NETSTAT at the ports says >that the foreign host is for a long time in the >LISTEN state. If there is an SMTP Server process running on the system, NETSTAT should show up a connection in LISTEN state with local & foreign hosts as 0.0.0.0 and local port reading 0.25. That's normal. If you don't see that, then the SMTP Server probably isn't there. If the SMTP server is running but there is no outstanding LISTEN on port 25, then something has happened to the SMTP server and it should be stopped and restarted. There were some CMU-Tek-related defects in versions of NETLIB prior to V1.5. (NETLIB is distributed with MX and is used as the interface to the underlying TCP/IP software.) If your SMTP-related processes are having problems on a regular basis, you may want to upgrade to the latest version of MX (currently at V3.1C), or at least the latest version of NETLIB (currently at V1.5), to see if that has any effect. Both MX and a separately packaged NETLIB distribution are available by anonymous FTP from vms.ecs.rpi.edu, vms2.ecs.rpi.edu, and spcvxa.spc.edu. -Matt -- Matthew Madison, Systems Programmer | Internet: madison@vms.ecs.rpi.edu Engineering Computing Services | Bitnet: MADISON@RPIECSVX Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | Troy, New York 12180-3590 USA | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 12:40:29 CDT Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 13:36:54 EDT From: "Jonathan E. Hardis" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: RE: Protocol error at my host?! To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: vandreser@sgbsn.cr.usgs.gov, hardis@vax844.phy.nist.gov Message-ID: <0095AE93.FCD48760.1556@vax844.phy.nist.gov> > Dear Fellow MX'ers > > This morning I received the message below and I don't really have a clue > as to what may be wrong. Is there a problem? No one else has > ever complained to me before about this problem. Here's the key information: >> It is apparently emitting E-mail addresses which do not have a fully >> qualified domain name, or are not the official (canonical) name of the >> host in the address. >> >> For every address in a message, the address is of the form >> "local-part@domain", and "domain" must always be fully qualified (e.g. >> "user@foo" is unqualified; "user@foo.edu" is properly qualified), and must >> be the official (canonical) host name (not an alias or CNAME), as required >> by RFC821, RFC822, RFC974, and RFC1123. >> >> E-mail with unqualified addresses cannot be replied to by its unlucky >> recipients. This means the users of the misconfigured host are not able to >> get replies to their E-mail. And he's absolutely correct. Check out this line from the header of your post: Sender: vandreser@sgbsn The only people who can reply to "vandreser@sgbsn" are those who have a default domain of ".cr.usgs.gov." I'm not enough of an MX expert to tell you all the places to check for this "gotcha." I would, for sure, check CONFIG.MCP to make sure that you have a DEFINE PATH for all variants of your local host name ("sgbsn.cr.usgs.gov", "sgbsn.cr.usgs", "sgbsn.cr","sgbsn") to LOCAL. To correct the problem that Apple and I see, check the MX_LOGICALS.DAT file to make sure that both MX_NODE_NAME and MX_VMSMAIL_LOCALHOST contain the fully qualified "sgbsn.cr.usgs.gov". - Jonathan ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 15:21:11 CDT From: Subject: Re: Protocol error at my host?! Message-ID: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET References: <0095AE76.47F06AC0.2376@sgbsn.cr.usgs.gov> Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 19:37:40 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0095AE76.47F06AC0.2376@sgbsn.cr.usgs.gov>, Tom Van Dreser 303-273-8596 USGS-BGRA writes: >This morning I received the message below and I don't really have a clue >as to what may be wrong. Is there a problem? No one else has >ever complained to me before about this problem. [...] >May 20 07:49:04 apple sendmail[23719]: from= unparseable, > received from sgbsn.cr.usgs.gov This is most likely caused by a configuration problem with your TCP/IP. It is mentioned in the release notes for MX V3.0 and later, though it's specifically geared towards UCX and MultiNet users. Looks like you're using CMU-Tek, though, but I think it's the same kind of problem. The problem typically stems from a combination of - the way your host name is registered in your local host table - the default DOMAIN_EXPANSION module you get with MX's SMTP support A domain expander is included with MX to help ensure that all the addresses entered in a message include fully-qualified domain names, the requirement that was pointed out in the message from the Apple person. The way it does this is by translating the host name into an address, then doing the reverse lookup from address to host name. This isn't ideal, especially since not all host names have addresses associated with them, but it works. (Incidentally, if someone can write a better one that's TCP/IP transport independent and doesn't amount to writing a full-blown caching DNS server, I'll happily use it and probably buy you a cigar, too.) What's probably biting you in this case is the address->name lookup, and if my guess is right, if you look in your INET$HOSTS file you should see an entry for your host that looks something like: HOST : 136.177.20.91 : sgbsn :::: or possibly: HOST : 136.177.20.91 : sgbsn,sgbsn.cr.usgs.gov :::: Your fully-qualified domain name (FQDN) should be _first_ in the list: HOST : 136.177.20.91 : sgbsn.cr.usgs.gov,sgbsn :::: I think you have to shut down and restart the NAMRES process for any changes to the host file to take effect. If this isn't the problem, please let me know so I can start munching on my fedora. Later, -Matt -- Matthew Madison, Systems Programmer | Internet: madison@vms.ecs.rpi.edu Engineering Computing Services | Bitnet: MADISON@RPIECSVX Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | Troy, New York 12180-3590 USA | After 15 June 1992: madison@tgv.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 16:17:00 CDT Sender: meyer@ifn.ing.tu-bs.de Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 23:11:31 MET From: Eckart Meyer Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095AEE4.42347B80.4815@ifn.ing.tu-bs.de> Subject: RE: Problem with unknown port 25. > In the TCP_ACTIVITY.LOG of the boot node running > the MX "SMTP Server" process are often a lot of > entries > "... SYN received for unknown port 25 from <...>". No solution, but just to confirm: I have also seen those entries, but only a few. Nevertheless we get many Mails each day without problems. I think this is not a MX related Problem, but a CMU-TEK TCP/IP one. We should ask in their list (cmu-tek-tcp@cmutek.cc.cmu.edu) -Eckart ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eckart Meyer Address: Schleinitzstr. 23 Inst. f. Nachrichtentechnik 3300 Braunschweig Technical University of Braunschweig Germany Phone: +49 531 391 2454 E-Mail: meyer@ifn.ing.tu-bs.de FAX: +49 531 391 5192 I7100501@DBSTU1.BITNET (not preferred) VMSmail: PSI%26245050351130::MEYER (DATEX-P) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 14:30:57 CDT Subject: Mail from All-in-1 Message-ID: <1992May21.155012.1@eis.dofasco.ca> From: fraser_h@eis.dofasco.ca Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: 21 May 92 15:50:12 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET We have a fairly large All-in1 community, and I'd like to provide them with access to the Usenet world. I've set up OALIB:SPECIAL.COM from the mx 'contrib' directory... it works fine. I've also set up a fake site within our domain called allin1.dofasco.ca and defined an mx rewrite rule to forward messages to this site to our Message Router Gateway (MRGATE). So far, so good. I can send a message from All-in-1 to _fraser_h@eis.dofasco.ca, and it appears in my VMS mailbox via MX. I can send a message to fraser_h@allin1.dofasco.ca, and it appears in my All-in-1 INBOX. However, mx_mailshr looks to a system logical called mx_vmsmail_local to determine the from address, which in our case is "@eis.dofasco.ca". I want to get All-in-1 mail to show up as being from '@allin1.dofasco.ca" so that replies will be routed correctly. My initial thought is to create a custom mx_mailshr that uses a different logical explicitly for the OA$LIB:SPECIAL.COM mail command. Any other suggestions? -- Hugh Fraser Dofasco Inc. (fraser_h@eis.dofasco.ca) 1330 Burlington St East (416)544-3761 X6941 Hamilton, Ont. L8N 3J5 Canada ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 14:01:41 CDT Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 15:56:10 AST From: Greg Bishop Subject: problem restricting access to MX Sender: GBishop@ac.nsac.ns.ca To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095B1CC.1A471AC0.5227@ac.nsac.ns.ca> Last week I entered the following three commands to restrict access to Message eXchange: $ set file/prot=world dkb100:[000000]mx031.dir $ set acl dkb100:[000000]mx031.dir/acl=(identifier=special,access=read+exec) $ set acl dkb100:[mx031]exe.dir/acl=(identifier=special,access=exec) Everything was working great until someone tried the following command on a remote node (that is not running MX): MAIL file.ext mx_node::user_with_MX_forwarding where user_with_MX_forwarding is a user who has SET FORWARD MX%"user@node3". The error message received is %MAIL-E-ERRACTRNS, error activating transport MX Can anyone point out the error of my ways? or suggest a better method of restricting usage of MX? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Greg Bishop Internet: GBISHOP@AC.NSAC.NS.CA System Manager Voice: (902) 893-6693 Nova Scotia Agricultural College Fax: (902) 895-4547 Truro, Nova Scotia CANADA B2N 5E3 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 04:18:49 CDT Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 01:11:21 PST From: Carl J Lydick Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: RE: problem restricting access to MX Sender: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095B219.A960AEE0.27639@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> >Last week I entered the following three commands to restrict access to >Message eXchange: > $ set file/prot=world dkb100:[000000]mx031.dir > $ set acl dkb100:[000000]mx031.dir/acl=(identifier=special,access=read+exec) > $ set acl dkb100:[mx031]exe.dir/acl=(identifier=special,access=exec) >Everything was working great until someone tried the following command on a >remote node (that is not running MX): > MAIL file.ext mx_node::user_with_MX_forwarding >where user_with_MX_forwarding is a user who has SET FORWARD MX%"user@node3". >The error message received is > %MAIL-E-ERRACTRNS, error activating transport MX >Can anyone point out the error of my ways? or suggest a better method of >restricting usage of MX? As to the error of your ways, issue the command: $ MCR NCP SHO OBJ MAIL CH to see what account is associated with the mail object. Then grant that account the "SPECIAL" identifier. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 12:04:54 CDT Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 11:50:40 AST From: Greg Bishop Subject: slight problem with solution to restricting access to MX Sender: GBishop@ac.nsac.ns.ca To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095B272.F925AEE0.5322@ac.nsac.ns.ca> The following solution: $ mcr authorize uaf> grant/iden special mail$server now enables users on remote nodes to send mail to users on my MX node that have forwarding set to an Internet address. The problem is: even users who do not have Internet access on the MX node (ie. have not been granted the special indetifier), also have access (and I'm sure some student is going to figure this out and spread it around). Is there anyway I can prevent this (maybe through some of Multinet's features?) P.S. Thanks for the help. I'm using it even though it's not PeRfEcT. Greg Bishop Internet: GBISHOP@AC.NSAC.NS.CA System Manager Voice: (902) 893-6693 Nova Scotia Agricultural College Fax: (902) 895-4547 Truro, Nova Scotia CANADA B2N 5E3 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 12:39:30 CDT Date: 26 May 92 13:35:49 EST From: WRM01@ALBNYDH2.BITNET Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-LIST@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Does MX work with All-In-1? The documentation makes mention only of VMS Mail as a user agent on VMS. I know nothing about the relationship between VMS Mail and All-In-1 Mail thus leading me to the question of whether or not All-In-1 Mail can be used with MX. The shop considering MX uses A-I-1 and doesn't want to retrain all their users for internal mail handling. Thanks, Bill Moyer wrm01@albnydh2.bitnet ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 12:39:39 CDT Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 09:28:21 PST From: Carl J Lydick Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: RE: slight problem with solution to restricting access to MX Sender: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095B25F.17419920.27659@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> >The following solution: > $ mcr authorize > uaf> grant/iden special mail$server >now enables users on remote nodes to send mail to users on my MX node that >have forwarding set to an Internet address. >The problem is: even users who do not have Internet access on the MX node (ie. >have not been granted the special indetifier), also have access (and I'm sure >some student is going to figure this out and spread it around). >Is there anyway I can prevent this (maybe through some of Multinet's features?) >P.S. Thanks for the help. I'm using it even though it's not PeRfEcT. I'm not sure whether this will work or not, so test it sometime when you can afford to lose mail during the test. You might be able to avoid the hole by allowing incoming proxy access on the MAIL object, and adding the following proxy: $ SET DEFAULT SYS$SYSTEM $ MCR AUTHORIZE UAF> ADD/PROXY your_node::* */DEFAULT My guess is that this will cause MAIL_SERVER to be run under the account of the person sending mail rather than under the MAIL$SERVER account. Of course, the more creative students would still figure out that sending mail to other_node::your_node::mx%"user@host.domain" will work. If you're going to allow users to set forwarding addresses that use MX, and if you're going to allow students to send mail via DECnet to other nodes, then I don't think there's any way around the latter problem. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 15:13:20 CDT From: Subject: FTP archive and Fileserv @vms.ecs.rpi.edu departing Message-ID: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 18:51:56 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET The anonymous FTP archives on vms.ecs.rpi.edu and vms2.ecs.rpi.edu are closing on 31 May 1992. All software packages residing on those systems have been moved to ftp.spc.edu, including the latest versions of MX, WATCHER, and NEWSRDR. The file server Fileserv@vms.ecs.rpi.edu (aka FILESERV@RPIECSVX on BITNET) is also closing down as of 31 May 1992. There is currently no other file server with the same packages as those offered on vms.ecs, although that may change in the near future. -Matt -- Matthew Madison, Systems Programmer | Internet: madison@vms.ecs.rpi.edu Engineering Computing Services | Bitnet: MADISON@RPIECSVX Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | Troy, New York 12180-3590 USA | After 15 June 1992: madison@tgv.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 16:18:21 CDT Date: Tue, 26 May 92 14:15:27 -0700 Message-ID: <9205262115.AA14975@eagle.is.lmsc.lockheed.com> From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: "cmu-tek-tcp@cmutek.cc.cmu.edu"@eagle.decnet.lockheed.com, "MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET"@eagle.decnet.lockheed.com Subject: Anonymous FTP site for MX I was wondering if anyone else has seen this particular problem when trying to connect to ftp.spc.edu (the new anonymous FTP site for MX). Here is what I am getting : $ ftp ftp.spc.edu %FTP-I-ATTEMPTING, Attempting to connect to host FTP.SPC.EDU 220 spcvxa.spc.edu CMU-Tek FTP for UCX (V1.3-2, 11 Nov 1991) ready. FTP> user anonymous 331 Guest login ok, send ident as password. Password: 230 Guest login ok, access restrictions apply. FTP> pwd 257 "USER7:[ANONYMOUS]" is current directory. FTP> cd [.mx] 250 Requested file action okay, completed. FTP> cd [.mx031] 250 Requested file action okay, completed. FTP> ls 200 Command Okay. 200 Port 129,197,67,20,113,127 Okay. 125 File status okay; about to open data connection. 426-Connection closed; transfer aborted. 426 Device timeout 200 Command Okay. %FTP-E-TRANSFER_ABORTE, Connection closed; tranfer Aborted About 60 seconds elapse between the "about to open data connection" and the "Connection closed" message. I connect to anonymous ftp sites all over the world and there is only one other place I have ever seen this behavior - vms.ecs.rpi.edu (the *OLD* MX site!). I could probably understand if I were not able to even connect to these nodes, but I can't understand why I can connect to the nodes but then am not able to do anything. By the way, I've tried this repeatedly at all hours of the day and night with not a single success. I'm running CMU/Tek v6.6-4 on a VAX 8650 running VMS 5.4. I've also tried this from another VAX at my company with the same results (the text of the error messages is different, of course, but it still amounts to a device timeout); that VAX is running Multinet TCP/IP. So that sort of casts doubt on a problem at my end; something between here and there is screwing me up. Bob Marshall marshall@force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 16:56:26 CDT From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <9205262146.AA06105@nickel.ucs.sfu.ca> Subject: Re: Anonymous FTP site for MX To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Tue, 26 May 92 14:46:58 PDT > > I was wondering if anyone else has seen this particular problem when trying > to connect to ftp.spc.edu (the new anonymous FTP site for MX). Here is what No... It seems to be working good from here (Vancouver). >Athens$ sho time > 26-MAY-1992 14:44:01 >Athens$ ftp ftp.spc.edu >ATHENS.SFU.CA MultiNet FTP user process 3.0(102) >Connection opened (Assuming 8-bit connections) >SPCVXA.SPC.EDU>user anonymous >Password: >SPCVXA.SPC.EDU> cd [.mx.mx031] >SPCVXA.SPC.EDU>dir >USER7:[ANONYMOUS.MX.MX031]00README.TXT;1 8/9 21-MAY-1992 08:25 . . . several lines deleted >USER7:[ANONYMOUS.MX.MX031]MX_REVC_UPGRADE031.A_Z;1 > 789/789 21-MAY-1992 08:25 >SPCVXA.SPC.EDU>exit >Athens$ sho time > 26-MAY-1992 14:45:00 >Athens$ Response was crisp. I tried it from a NeXTStation, and from an 8530 running Multinet. -- Bill Baines bill@sfu.ca, bill@SFUVAX.Bitnet, (604) 291-3955, (fax 291-4242), VE7FML ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 23:54:45 CDT From: roseberry@uscghq.uucp Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Location of NETLIB014 Message-ID: <1992May26.203343.34@uscghq.uucp> Date: 27 May 92 01:33:43 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Just when you think you have all the pieces to make DECUS UUCP, MX, and CMU Tek work together .... I have a release notes file for NETLIB014 but can't find the saveset anywhere. How can I get NETLIB014 ? Thanks. - Bert Roseberry US Coast Guard roseberry@uscghq.gov ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 00:30:59 CDT Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 01:27:19 EDT From: "Jonathan E. Hardis" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: RE: Location of NETLIB014 To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: roseberry@uscghq.gov, hardis@vax844.phy.nist.gov Message-ID: <0095B2E5.0F39F840.1678@vax844.phy.nist.gov> > Just when you think you have all the pieces to make DECUS UUCP, MX, > and CMU Tek work together .... > > I have a release notes file for NETLIB014 but can't find the saveset > anywhere. How can I get NETLIB014 ? May I offer you NETLIB015 instead? It's in the .B saveset of MX031 (Revision C): $ LZDCMP :== ${your directory name here}LZDCMP $ LZDCMP MX031.B_Z MX031.B $ BACKUP/LIST MX031.B/SAVE ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 16:52:36 CDT Subject: X.400 in mailing lists?????? Message-ID: <1992May27.151354.169@kahuna.asd-yf.wpafb.af.mil> From: nieland_t@kahuna.asd-yf.wpafb.af.mil Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: 27 May 92 15:13:54 EST To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET I have a problem with the Mailing list portion of the software. I need to add someone with an X.400 type address through SPRINT.COM. Guess what, they use "/"'s all over the place. When I send the request to register the person, the request fails because of unknown qualifiers. Any suggestions? (I tried surronding it with quotes.) Ted Nieland nieland_t@kahuna.asd-yf.wpafb.af.mil (513) 476-4639 nieland@ted.hcst.com Hassler Communications Systems Technology ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 16:59:59 CDT Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 16:59:50 CDT From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095B367.545D6CE0.11906@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: RE: X.400 in mailing lists?????? nieland_t@kahuna.asd-yf.wpafb.af.mil writes: > >I have a problem with the Mailing list portion of the software. I need to add >someone with an X.400 type address through SPRINT.COM. Guess what, they use >"/"'s all over the place. When I send the request to register the person, >the request fails because of unknown qualifiers. > >Any suggestions? (I tried surronding it with quotes.) > Use this: ADD "Joe User" Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 17:26:44 CDT Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 17:26:37 CDT From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095B36B.123937A0.11945@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: Bob's problems accessing ftp.spc.edu writes: > >I was wondering if anyone else has seen this particular problem when trying >to connect to ftp.spc.edu (the new anonymous FTP site for MX). Here is what >I am getting : > FYI: Terry Kennedy, owner of ftp.spc.edu, found that the problem was that Bob's gateway to the Internet was incorrectly set up. Just in case anyone wondered what the deal was.... Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 06:12:26 CDT Date: Thu, 28 May 92 06:09:42 -0500 From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <9205281109.AA18503@fermat.Mayo.EDU> To: mx-list%wkuvx1.bitnet@ukcc.uky.edu Subject: MX w/ MRGATE I'm evaluating MX as a solution to a specific problem. We use Message Router with various gateways to integrate several mail systems (currently All-in-1 IOS, All-in-1 Mail, OfficeVision, smtp, and VMSmail). The problem is that outbound messages through the MR/smtp gateway we're currently using have From addresses which are not RFC 822 compliant and are generally not repliable. I want to interface MX with MR so that smtp users can have DDS entries, can receive mail from any other user, and can reply to such mail. Because MRGATE doesn't deal with addresses containing quotation marks very well, I gave up on trying to use anything like mx%"user@domain" in the DDS subscriber's VMSORADDRESS field. I thought I might point the DDS entry to a "real" VMSmail address which I would autoforward to mx%"user@domain". That works -- outbound messages are delivered but mostly still aren't repliable. I found MX's NAME_CONVERSION.whatever but don't know how to include the additional rewrite rules I'll need. Am I on the right track or have I missed something? Can MRGATE talk to MX more directly; i.e., not through an autoforwarded VMSmail address? Thanks. Steven L. Jobes Section of Network Management, Mayo Foundation, Rochester, MN 507-284-4047 jobes@mayo.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 08:19:36 CDT Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 08:19:29 CDT From: "Hunter Goatley, WKU" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095B3E7.CD8A54E0.12444@WKUVX1.BITNET> Subject: MX_REVC_UPGRADE031 available from FILESERV@WKUVX1.BITNET I just added the MX_REV_UPGRADE031 kit to FILESERV@WKUVX1.BITNET. This kit will take you from MX V3.1[A|B] to MX V3.1C. You must already have MX v3.1 installed. MX itslef is not yet available from here, but I plan to make it available soon. The upgrade kit is available via anonymous ftp from ftp.spc.edu as [.MX.MX031]MX_REVC_UPGRADE031.A_Z. You can get it via e-mail by sending the following commands in the body of a mail message to FILESERV@WKUVX1.BITNET: SEND MX_REVC_UPGRADE031 SEND FILESERV_TOOLS The kit is LZCOMPed and MFTUed, so you need LZDCMP and MFTU to decompress them. Note that this is different from the way Matt stored them, so, even if you have his FILESERV_TOOLS, you'll need to get mine now. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 09:05:15 CDT Subject: Re: Does MX work with All-In-1? Message-ID: <1992May28.082940.1@eis.dofasco.ca> From: fraser_h@eis.dofasco.ca Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: 28 May 92 08:29:40 GMT References: <6683332@MVB.SAIC.COM> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <6683332@MVB.SAIC.COM>, WRM01@ALBNYDH2.BITNET writes: > The documentation makes mention only of VMS Mail as a user agent > on VMS. I know nothing about the relationship between VMS Mail > and All-In-1 Mail thus leading me to the question of whether or > not All-In-1 Mail can be used with MX. The shop considering MX > uses A-I-1 and doesn't want to retrain all their users for internal > mail handling. > Thanks, > Bill Moyer > wrm01@albnydh2.bitnet > Having just gone through the same problem, I can tell you that the name_conversion.mar program in the examples directory of the MX distribution does exactly that. All-in-1 users specify non-All-in-1 addresses as mx%"dest_address". My address from all-in-1 would be mx%"fraser_h@eis.dofasco.ca". I also defined a pseudo-site within our dofasco.ca domain called allin1.dofasco.ca. It's defined in the mx paths as local, and has a rewrite rule that translates the address to forward it to mrgate. Thus, my all-in-1 account is fraser_h@allin1.dofasco.ca. The name_conversion program is preferable over the special.com that's part of all-in-1 because it rewrites the sender's address to reflect that the message came from mrgate rather than vms mail. -- Hugh Fraser Dofasco Inc. (fraser_h@eis.dofasco.ca) 1330 Burlington St East (416)544-3761 X6941 Hamilton, Ont. L8N 3J5 Canada ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 10:11:02 CDT From: Subject: Re: Bob's problems accessing ftp.spc.edu Message-ID: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET References: <0095B36B.123937A0.11945@WKUVX1.BITNET> Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 14:23:15 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0095B36B.123937A0.11945@WKUVX1.BITNET>, goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (Hunter Goatley, WKU) writes: > writes: >> >>I was wondering if anyone else has seen this particular problem when trying >>to connect to ftp.spc.edu (the new anonymous FTP site for MX). Here is what >>I am getting : >> >FYI: Terry Kennedy, owner of ftp.spc.edu, found that the problem was >that Bob's gateway to the Internet was incorrectly set up. Just in case >anyone wondered what the deal was.... Actually, the problem was with the FTP server on ftp.spc.edu. I have issued a fix for this problem (yes, I wrote that, too) which Terry will probably install shortly. In the meantime, you can still get MX-related files from vms.ecs.rpi.edu (which already has the fix installed). -Matt -- Matthew Madison, Systems Programmer | Internet: madison@vms.ecs.rpi.edu Engineering Computing Services | Bitnet: MADISON@RPIECSVX Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | Troy, New York 12180-3590 USA | After 15 June 1992: madison@tgv.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 11:34:28 CDT Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 18:26:17 CET From: Helmut Springer Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <0095B43C.926C5B60.5517@bonnie.physik.uni-stuttgart.de> Subject: From: ListServ@... in -Request@... answers Hi ! I've a problem defining a mailing-list using MLF. When a user sends a command to "-Request@mynode", the From:-line of the answer contains only "ListServ@mynode". A users reply then reaches the LISTSERV-interface of MFL, althought he wants the whole time to use the internet-interface... I don't see hints in the documentation about changing this, any ideas ? thanx in advance Helmut -- Helmut Springer University of Stuttgart, FRG User HelpDesk Computing Center CipPool Physics Department springer@rus.uni-stuttgart.de helmut@bonnie.physik.uni-stuttgart.de phone: +49 711 685-4828 1291::helmut (BelWue) %SYSTEM-I-MAILONSYS, there's mail installed on this system ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 12:23:02 CDT Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 12:18:47 CDT From: "George D. Greenwade" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: springer@rus.uni-stuttgart.de Message-ID: <0095B409.3BABADE0.29943@SHSU.edu> Subject: RE: From: ListServ@... in -Request@... answers On Thu, 28 May 1992 18:26:17 CET, Helmut Springer posted: > I've a problem defining a mailing-list using MLF. > > When a user sends a command to "-Request@mynode", the From:-line of > the answer contains only "ListServ@mynode". > > A users reply then reaches the LISTSERV-interface of MFL, althought he > wants the whole time to use the internet-interface... > > I don't see hints in the documentation about changing this, any ideas ? Maybe this is something Hunter can look into (but I wouldn't suggest it). Please allow me to point out a few things of possible interest which you might want to consider. First, your user can post to the {list-name}-Request address (the {request-address}) and access all of the options available without specifying {list-name} (the main difference between ListServ and the {request-address} now that both support all features and options). Second, while I can't precisely claim the fame to this, the change from the {request-address} to ListServ may have come about in one of the MX 2.?? versions from Matt in response to problems we were having from BITNET sites which did not run mailers. If the {list-name} is exactly 8 characters (INFO-TeX, for example) and a BITNET site abends the name of {request-address} to its first 8 characters, posts intended for the {request-address} end up going to the {list-address}. This can be messy, cause flames, etc. Moreover, it means that you are continuing the two different cultures of list-related commands, making ListServ and {request-address} appear different when, in fact, they are one and the same. While I recognize that two different cultures do exist (usually the {request-address} goes to a human for handling instead of being automagically handled as in MX), the extra confusion, especially by BITNET users attempting to use {request-address} when their system doesn't support it but they are unaware of it, can cause tremendous headaches. The workaround Matt employed was to simply use ListServ consistently for all list-related MLF notifications instead of {request-address}. Since this change, I haven't seen any problems (nor have any been posted to MX-List, best as I can recall). Maybe this will be of some assistance in at least explaining why you get what you get. As far as looking into "fixing" this in some future release, if enough people want this, then Hunter (following the gallant lead of Matt) will probably look into it. Given that the current design ensures something of a fail-safe method of addressing and minimizes confusion, I would vote against it and tell users that {request-address} exists and is supported if they want it, but ListServ is the public name attached to mail from the MLF process. Regards, George %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% George D. Greenwade, Ph.D. Bitnet: BED_GDG@SHSU Department of Economics and Business Analysis THEnet: SHSU::BED_GDG College of Business Administration Voice: (409) 294-1266 P. O. Box 2118 FAX: (409) 294-3612 Sam Houston State University Internet: bed_gdg@SHSU.edu Huntsville, TX 77341 bed_gdg%SHSU.decnet@relay.the.net %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 13:43:23 CDT Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 20:04:45 CET From: Helmut Springer Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List%WKUVX1.BITNET@RUSVM1.rus.uni-stuttgart.de Message-ID: <0095B44A.53D2EF00.5546@bonnie.physik.uni-stuttgart.de> Subject: RE: From: ListServ@... in -Request@... answers Wow, that was quick reaction, thanx George. >might want to consider. First, your user can post to the >{list-name}-Request address (the {request-address}) and access all of the >options available without specifying {list-name} (the main difference >between ListServ and the {request-address} now that both support all >features and options). Well, I know that, but the users here tend to "I'm using internet, so I use the internet-style, why doesn't it accept my commands ?!?" Looking at the mail headers seems not to be very popular...8-) >versions from Matt in response to problems we were having from BITNET sites >which did not run mailers. If the {list-name} is exactly 8 characters [...skipped...] >{request-address} appear different when, in fact, they are one and the I see, that's a problem I didn't think about... I'll change the ADD_ and HELP_MESSAGE, to tell every user to use the ListServ-Style by default... thanx Helmut -- Helmut Springer University of Stuttgart, FRG User HelpDesk Computing Center CipPool Physics Department springer@rus.uni-stuttgart.de helmut@bonnie.physik.uni-stuttgart.de phone: +49 711 685-4828 1291::helmut (BelWue) %SYSTEM-I-MAILONSYS, there's mail installed on this system ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 16:24:02 CDT From: goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: WKUVX1 FILESERV additions: Matt Madison's utilities Message-ID: <1992May28.142553.1610@wkuvx1.bitnet> Date: 28 May 92 19:25:53 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET A couple of days ago, Matt Madison announced that the ftp archive and FILESERV @RPI.ECS.VMS.EDU would be going down May 31. He also stated that all of the software previously stored there is now available via anonymous ftp from ftp.spc.edu (in [.MX] and [.MADISON...]). I have just finished making all of Matt's utilities available via e-mail from FILESERV@WKUVX1.BITNET (except MX---I'm still working on it). The following packages are now available: CLAIM Assume ownership of files in your directory MDMLIB Sources for Matt Madison's library routines MPMGR A ModParams Manager MX_REVC_UPGRADE031 Upgrade kit for MX (V3.1[A|B] to V3.1C) NETLIB Matt Madison's NETLIB TCP/IP library routines NETLIB_SRC Sources for NETLIB NEWSRDR Matt Madison's NNTP client reader for Usenet news NEWSRDR_SRC Sources for NEWSRDR NSQUERY Utility to query Internet domain name servers PCX PC Exchange -- read/write MS-DOS floppies on VMS SETUP Centralize symbols, etc., for third-party products UCX_FINGER FINGER client and server for UCX WATCHER Matt Madison's idle process monitor/killer WATCHER_SRC Sources for WATCHER You can get a package by sending a command like the following in the body of a mail message to FILESERV@WKUVX1.BITNET: SEND package Note that many of the utilities are packed using MFTU; you'll also need the FILESERV_TOOLS package to unpack them. FILESERV@WKUVX1.BITNET will continue to be the "official" fileserver archive site for these utilities. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 16:46:12 CDT Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 14:39:26 PDT From: "Bob Johns, (604)363-6520" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@RPIECSVX.BITNET CC: bob@ccs.ios.bc.ca Message-ID: <0095B41C.E1CED400.93@ccs.ios.bc.ca> Subject: SUBSCRIBE SUBSCRIBE ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 15:02:59 CDT Subject: invalid device? Message-ID: <1992May29.184055.11647@samba.oit.unc.edu> From: Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 18:40:55 GMT Sender: usenet@samba.oit.unc.edu To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET I'm trying to install MX on our system, and it isn't going well. I'm reasonably certain the problems are me - we've just recently installed the VAX, and I'm not really much of a system manager yet. So help! I followed the procedures for installation as given in the MX docs, and it looked like it all went OK. But when I attempt to send mail using MX, I get %RMS-F-DEV, error in device name or inappropriate device type for operation !!! Specifically, I try to send a message to mx%postmaster. I get the above message, and MAIL aborts. A message addressed to postmaster works just fine. Can anyone give me a hint what to look at? MX031B (I'm waiting for it to work before upgrading to rev. C) UCX 1.3 VMS 5.4-3 Thanks. Dennis R. Sherman Triangle Research Libraries Network dennis_sherman@unc.edu Univ. of North Carolina - Chapel Hill -- The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 15:51:06 CDT Sender: syssand@CCVAX.CCS.CSUS.EDU Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 13:44:09 PDT From: "John F. Sandhoff" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: dennis_sherman@unc.edu, syssand@CCVAX.CCS.CSUS.EDU Message-ID: <0095B4DE.5300F9C0.13133@CCVAX.CCS.CSUS.EDU> Subject: RE: invalid device? > MX031B (I'm waiting for it to work before upgrading to rev. C) > UCX 1.3 > VMS 5.4-3 What IP package are you using? John F. Sandhoff, University Network Support California State University, Sacramento sandhoff@csus.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 17:55:03 CDT Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 18:48:47 EDT From: "Jonathan E. Hardis" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: RE: invalid device? To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: Dennis.Sherman@bbs.oit.unc.edu, hardis@vax844.phy.nist.gov Message-ID: <0095B508.E1751400.1802@vax844.phy.nist.gov> > When I attempt to send mail using MX, I get > %RMS-F-DEV, error in device name or inappropriate device type for operation It's a shot in the dark, but try this command: $ SHO LOGI MX* My guess is that you'll find a logical that has a mispelling in it, particularly in the pseudo-device portion. That is, double check the validity of such logicals as MX_ROOT:, MX_DIR:, MX_EXE:, and do on. Some of these you can correct in MX_DIR:MX_LOGICALS.DAT . Others are defined when SYS$STARTUP:MX_STARTUP.COM calls SYS$SYSDEVICE:[MX.EXE]MX___STARTUP.COM . If I'm right, hunt around a bit with an editor to find where the problem originates. P.S. to John F. Sandhoff, he said he was running UCX (VMX/Ultrix Exchange). ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 20:14:09 CDT Date: 29 May 1992 19:09:17 -0600 (MDT) From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Subject: Re: invalid device? To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET Message-ID: <01GKLENNSZNM0000C1@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU> Dennis R. Sherman, dennis_sherman@unc.edu, writes: >So help! I followed the procedures for installation as given in the MX >docs, and it looked like it all went OK. But when I attempt to send mail >using MX, I get > >%RMS-F-DEV, error in device name or inappropriate device type for operation I had a similar problem when I moved MX to another disk. I changed all the MX* logicals to point to the new device, but still couldn't send mail. The problem was my FLQ_DIR logical, which is defined in the system table. For some reason during the installation it got defined to DISKG:[MX_ROOT.QUEUE] and when I moved the MX stuff to another disk it didn't follow along. I found that it had its value defined in the file MX_ROOT:[000000]MX_LOGICALS.DAT which I edited so that FLQ_DIR has a definition of MX_DEVICE:[MX_ROOT.QUEUE] so I won't have the problem again. I don't know if I installed something wrong or answered a question incorrectly when I installed MX that caused that to happen. Question for Hunter: Could you change all the MX logicals so they start with MX? -Dan Wing, DWING@UH01.Colorado.EDU, WING_D@UCOLMCC.BITNET Systems Programmer, University Hospital, Denver ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 03:25:41 CDT Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 10:21:35 MESZ From: "Reinhold Meyer, Forstliche Biometrie UNIGOE" Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET To: mx-list@WKUVX1.BITNET CC: rmeyer@ufobi2.uni-forst.gwdg.de Message-ID: <0095B654.5B2A61A0.4997@ufobi2.uni-forst.gwdg.de> Subject: Postmaster's personal name There is a problem with the From: address of Postmaster. The quotes in the "personal name" are missing. Some mail systems don't like this and the error message will reach the the user. Now it looks like: From: Local delivery agent To: Subject: LOCAL delivery error From: Mailing list & file server To: Subject: Mailing list or file server error correct: From: "Local delivery agent" To: Subject: LOCAL delivery error From: "Mailing list & file server" To: Subject: Mailing list or file server error Please correct these From: addresses in the next release of MX. Reinhold -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reinhold Meyer Abt. Forstliche Biometrie u. Informatik Buesgenweg 4 W-3400 Goettingen Voice : +49 551 393466 Internet: rmeyer@ufobi2.uni-forst.gwdg.de ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 10:00:07 CDT From: Subject: Re: Postmaster's personal name Message-ID: <0gbwdnq@rpi.edu> Reply-To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET References: <0095B654.5B2A61A0.4997@ufobi2.uni-forst.gwdg.de> Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 14:24:12 GMT To: MX-List@WKUVX1.BITNET In article <0095B654.5B2A61A0.4997@ufobi2.uni-forst.gwdg.de>, "Reinhold Meyer, Forstliche Biometrie UNIGOE" writes: >There is a problem with the From: address of Postmaster. The quotes >in the "personal name" are missing. Some mail systems don't like this and >the error message will reach the the user. > >Now it looks like: > >From: Local delivery agent [..] >From: Mailing list & file server Please check with RFC 822. You will find that these are both correctly formed; quotation marks are unnecessary. If a mail system is rejecting them, it is in error and should be corrected. -- Matthew Madison, Systems Programmer | Internet: madison@vms.ecs.rpi.edu Engineering Computing Services | Bitnet: MADISON@RPIECSVX Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | Troy, New York 12180-3590 USA | After 15 June 1992: madison@tgv.com