Archive-Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:36:27 -0600 From: eplan@kapsch.co.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER) Subject: RE: How can this happen ? Date: 2 Feb 98 16:19:41 GMT Message-ID: <34d5f21d.0@nevada.kapsch.co.at> Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <009C10D6.DF91A055.11@ALPHA.WKU.EDU>, Hunter Goatley writes: >[snip] >Yes, MX V5.0 comes with a utility called SPAMFILTER that does >heuristical filtering, including a case like this one. Time to ask for V5.0, again ;-) IIRC, V5.0 was first (some kind of) announced last spring... Hunter, please, or we are all forced to use shoveware (M$ Exchange) by our meeting-going-morons ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER Tel. +43 1 81111-2382 Network and OpenVMS system manager Fax. +43 1 81111-888 Technical Computer Center (ADV) E-mail eplan@kapsch.net <<< KAPSCH AG Wagenseilgasse 1 PSImail PSI%(0232)281001141::EPLAN A-1121 VIENNA AUSTRIA "I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:37:26 -0600 Sender: madison@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 08:39:24 -0800 From: Matt Madison Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C133E.874CC609.1@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM> Subject: RE: How can this happen ? >Time to ask for V5.0, again ;-) > >IIRC, V5.0 was first (some kind of) announced last spring... > >Hunter, please, or we are all forced to use shoveware (M$ Exchange) by our >meeting-going-morons Watch this list for an announcement coming later today or tomorrow. -Matt -- Matthew Madison | MadGoat Software | PO Box 556, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 USA madison@madgoat.com http://www.madgoat.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:04:08 -0600 Sender: madison@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:06:07 -0800 From: Matt Madison Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.Com Message-ID: <009C135B.67BBBDCD.1@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM> Subject: MX V5.0 now available MadGoat Software is pleased to announce the release of Message Exchange V5.0. V5.0 contains many enhancements. For full information, please visit our web site at http://www.madgoat.com or get the MX V5.0 release notes at ftp://ftp.madgoat.com/mx/mx050/mx050.release_notes. Here are the highlights: * MX V5.0 includes several features to help prevent the receipt and relay of "junk" e-mail. The MX Management Guide now includes a chapter on configuring MX to prevent junk mail. * The SMTP server and delivery agent now support some ESMTP extensions, such as PIPELINING and SIZE. * Several mailing list processing enhancements have been added to MLF. * MIME decoding for local message delivery to VMS Mail has been enhanced. * MX V5.0 now includes the latest release of NETLIB, V2.2 and uses the NETLIB V2 API, which should provide some minor performance improvements. Other performance improvements have also been made throughout all of the agents. PLEASE NOTE ----------- As of V5.0, MX is now licensed software. A 30-day free evaluation license key is automatically registered when you install the kit. For information on ordering a permanent license key and a price list, please send an e-mail message to MX-Info@MadGoat.COM, and an automatic responder will return an order form and price list to you. -Matt -- Matthew Madison | MadGoat Software | PO Box 556, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 USA madison@madgoat.com http://www.madgoat.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 03:14:30 -0600 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:07:59 GMT From: Chris.Sharman@ccagroup.co.uk Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: info-vax@mvb.saic.com, MX-List@wkuvx1.wku.edu CC: Chris.Sharman@ccagroup.co.uk Message-ID: <009C140B.B002E105.2@ccagroup.co.uk> Subject: Pop or whatever We're planning on publishing some e-mail addresses. We plan to route these to various users, but we'd like to provide some cover in the event of sickness, etc. The environment is MX 4.2, VMS 6.2, with users on VTs. We thought POP might be the solution, so that users can request delivery of email for these particular addresses, supervisors can check whether it's been picked up, and colleagues can pick it up in their absence. Does anyone know of a POP client for VMSmail, or have a better suggestion ? ______________________________________________________________________ Chris Sharman Chris.Sharman@CCAgroup.co.uk CCA Stationery Ltd, Eastway, Fulwood, Preston, Lancashire, PR2 9WS. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 05:27:25 -0600 From: eplan@kapsch.co.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER) Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available Date: 3 Feb 98 11:20:31 GMT Message-ID: <34d6fd7f.0@nevada.kapsch.co.at> Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <009C135B.67BBBDCD.1@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM>, Matt Madison writes: >MadGoat Software is pleased to announce the release of Message Exchange V5.0. Great. >As of V5.0, MX is now licensed software. Peng. And that was the dead of MX. What a disappointment Welcome to SHOVEWARE (M$ Exchange) and one more Good-Bye to OpenVMS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER Tel. +43 1 81111-2382 Network and OpenVMS system manager Fax. +43 1 81111-888 Technical Computer Center (ADV) E-mail eplan@kapsch.net <<< KAPSCH AG Wagenseilgasse 1 PSImail PSI%(0232)281001141::EPLAN A-1121 VIENNA AUSTRIA "I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 07:44:08 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 08:42:56 -0500 From: "Brian Tillman, x8425" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C1408.2FEB3560.29@swdev.si.com> Subject: RE: Pop or whatever >Does anyone know of a POP client for VMSmail, or have a better suggestion ? Pine for VMS is a POP client. Get it from wku.edu, where so much other good VMS stuff can be found. -- Brian Tillman Internet: tillman_brian at si.com Smiths Industries, Inc. tillman at swdev.si.com 4141 Eastern Ave., MS239 Addresses modified to prevent Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 SPAM. Replace "at" with "@" This opinion doesn't represent that of my company ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:50:20 -0600 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:54:34 EST From: john@Argent-Software.com Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C141A.93BF721A.3@Argent-Software.com> Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available >>As of V5.0, MX is now licensed software. > >Peng. And that was the dead of MX. What a disappointment >Welcome to SHOVEWARE (M$ Exchange) and one more Good-Bye to OpenVMS. M$ Exchange is NOT free!!! John Vottero ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:06:59 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: Upgrade? Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:39:12 -0600 Message-ID: <34D6E5C0.1F57E540@MadGoat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Greg Zeus wrote: > > I've been running MX version 4.1 for almost 3 years now without > incident. Bascically using the Listserv function. > > I was trying to find information on Year 2000 compliance. I know I > need to bring my VAX up to VMS 6.2 as a minimum. Do I need to upgrade > my version of MX as well? > No, although V4.2 does have a number of bug fixes over V4.1 (and the newly-release V5.0 has tons more, as well as new features). Depending on what version of VMS you're running, you may need to reinstall MX to relink MX_MAILSHRP; you'll know if you need to because you'll get a "system version mismatch" message when you try to send mail. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:13:22 -0600 Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980203101138.00affb40@moses.acu.edu> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 10:11:40 -0600 To: MX-List@MadGoat.com From: Tom Dolan Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: Echo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MX People, Here is the answer to my questions about how to make email sent to Echo@host.domain to be forwarded or resent to an email address in the subject line (the subject line must only contain a single email address). This echo procedure is useful to Microsoft FrontPage web development users who want to send the results of a web form to an email address collected on the form. FrontPage does not allow the To: or From: address to be modified on the fly when sending form results out via email. But FrontPage does allow the Reply-To: address and the Subject line to be set to variables collected in the form. So we set the Subject line to the address where the form results should be sent (usually the address the form collected of the person who filled out the form), and the Reply-To: field to a preset address of the final destination (the person we want to ultimately receive the form data.) Then we send the email message to Echo@host.domain which forwards the message on to the address in the subject line. The path from the perspective of the person filling out the form is: 1 enter data in the form 2 hit the submit button causing the form data to be emailed 3 recieve the email and verify the form information is correct 4 hit reply causing an email message containing the verified form data to be sent to the Reply-To: address How To set Echo up in MX: (attribution goes to Jonathan Hardis and John Hasstedt who will recognize their slightly modified code below!) Define Rewrite and Path in MCP: DEFINE REWRITE_RULE DEFINE PATH "ECHO" SITE/ROUTE="ECHO" Make MX_DEVICE:[MX.EXE]SITE_DELIVER.COM look something like: $! P1 - The ROUTE name (corresponds to /ROUTE on DEFINE PATH) $! P2 - Name of RFC-822 formatted file $! P3 - Name of RFC-822 addresses to receive file $! P4 - RFC-822-compliant sender's address $ $! Separate processing for different routes $! $ IF P1 .EQS. "FAX" THEN GOTO FAX_Start .... $ IF P1 .EQS. "ECHO" THEN GOTO Echo_Start $ EXIT 4 $ $!------------------------------------------------------------------ --- $ .... $ $!------------------------------------------------------------------ --- $! $! SITE_DELIVER.COM for ECHO $! This procedure takes email sent to Echo@host.domain and forwards $! the message to the address in the Subject line header. If the $! Subject line is not a valid address the message goes to the bit $! bucket. $! $ ECHO_START: $ SET NOON $! $! create filename to write new (P3) address to $! $ FILE = F$ELEMENT(1, "]", P2) $ FILE = "MULTINET_SPOOL:" + F$ELEMENT(0, ";", FILE) $! $! Find Subject: address in (P2) file $! Exit if Subject line doesn't exist $! $ SUBJECT: $ OPEN/READ P2STUFF 'P2' $ READ_LOOP: $ READ/END_OF_FILE=ENDIT P2STUFF NAME $ SUBJECT = F$ELEMENT(0, ":", NAME) $ IF SUBJECT .NES. "Subject" THEN GOTO READ_LOOP $ ISSUBJECT = F$ELEMENT(1, ":", NAME) $ ISSUBJECT = F$EDIT(ISSUBJECT, "COLLAPSE, TRIM") $ CLOSE P2STUFF $! $! Write address from Subject line to P3 $! $ OPEN/WRITE ADDR 'FILE' $ WRITE ADDR "<", ISSUBJECT, ">" $ CLOSE ADDR $! $! Replace P4 address with subject address - Warning: this makes the $! message appear to come from the Subject line address. $! $ P4 = ISSUBJECT $! $! Edit contents of source-file (P2) $! to replace Echo@host.domain with $! Subject line address. Warning: This makes the $! Reply-To header the only unaltered header. $! $! First create edit command file to replace any occurance of $! Echo@host.domain in the P2 file with subject line address $! $ OPEN/WRITE DAT MX_ROOT:[SITE]CHANGE_P2_ECHO.DAT $ WRITE DAT "SUBSTITUTE/Echo@host.domain/", ISSUBJECT, "/ WHOLE /NOTYPE" $ WRITE DAT "EXIT" $ CLOSE DAT $! $! Second execute command file to edit header $! $ DEFINE/USER_MODE SYS$OUTPUT NL: $ EDIT/EDT/COMMAND=MX_ROOT:[SITE]CHANGE_P2_ECHO.DAT 'P2' $ NEW_P2 = F$PARSE(";2",P2) $! $! Deliver message and clean up $! $ MX_ENTER = "$MX_EXE:MX_SITE_IN" $ MX_ENTER 'NEW_P2' 'FILE' "''P4'" $ DELETE 'DAT' $ DELETE 'NEW_P2' $ DELETE 'FILE';* $ ENDIT: $ CLOSE P2STUFF $! uncomment the following for debugging $! open/write ofile mx_exe:showoff.txt $! write ofile p1 $! write ofile p2 $! write ofile p3 $! write ofile p4 $! close ofile $! copy 'p2' mx_exe:file2.txt $! copy 'p3' mx_exe:file3.txt $ EXIT 1 $!------------------------------------------------------------------ ------- Tom Dolan Dolan@Bible.acu.edu 202 Bible Building Systems Manager ACU Box 29454 College of Biblical Studies Abilene, TX 79699 Abilene Christian University 915.674.3706 http://dolan.acu.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:21:09 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 8:20:56 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980203082056.202a8157@Cisco.COM> Subject: RE: Pop or whatever >Does anyone know of a POP client for VMSmail, or have a better suggestion ? Netscape. -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:26:21 -0600 Sender: meregalli@cesi.it Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 17:25:59 +0100 From: Alberto Meregalli (DIF) Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: meregalli@cesi.it Message-ID: <009C1451.41C2CB60.20@cesi.it> Subject: RE: MX V5.0 now available >PLEASE NOTE >----------- > >As of V5.0, MX is now licensed software. A 30-day free evaluation license key >is automatically registered when you install the kit. For information on >ordering a permanent license key and a price list, please send an e-mail >message to MX-Info@MadGoat.COM, and an automatic responder will return an >order form and price list to you. > >-Matt > >-- >Matthew Madison | MadGoat Software | PO Box 556, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 USA >madison@madgoat.com http://www.madgoat.com > I think that it would be nice to explicitly explain how you decided to change the status of MX. thank you --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alberto Meregalli, DIF tel. +39 2 2125 249 CESI, Centro Elettrotecnico Sperimentale Italiano fax +39 2 2125 520 Via Rubattino, 54 - I 20134 Milano E-mail: meregalli@cesi.it ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:05:33 -0600 Sender: BRAD Message-ID: <34D6DDCF.450E966@tgsmc.com> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:05:19 -0800 From: Brad Hughes Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available References: <34d6fd7f.0@nevada.kapsch.co.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter LANGSTOEGER wrote: > > In article <009C135B.67BBBDCD.1@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM>, Matt Madison writes: > >MadGoat Software is pleased to announce the release of Message Exchange V5.0. > > Great. > > >As of V5.0, MX is now licensed software. > > Peng. And that was the dead of MX. What a disappointment > Welcome to SHOVEWARE (M$ Exchange) and one more Good-Bye to OpenVMS. > You can always continue to run MX v4.x; MX v5.0 has lots of goodies we've all been clamoring for, more than PMDF or certainly Multinet/UCX/TCPware, etc. You priced PMDF lately? ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:05:42 -0600 Sender: BRAD Message-ID: <34D6DDCF.450E966@tgsmc.com> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:05:19 -0800 From: Brad Hughes Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available References: <34d6fd7f.0@nevada.kapsch.co.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter LANGSTOEGER wrote: > > In article <009C135B.67BBBDCD.1@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM>, Matt Madison writes: > >MadGoat Software is pleased to announce the release of Message Exchange V5.0. > > Great. > > >As of V5.0, MX is now licensed software. > > Peng. And that was the dead of MX. What a disappointment > Welcome to SHOVEWARE (M$ Exchange) and one more Good-Bye to OpenVMS. > You can always continue to run MX v4.x; MX v5.0 has lots of goodies we've all been clamoring for, more than PMDF or certainly Multinet/UCX/TCPware, etc. You priced PMDF lately? ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:07:10 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 09:42:47 -0600 Message-ID: <34D6E697.2FC64C79@MadGoat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Nigel Arnot wrote: > > I can't justify spending lots on this, especially given that until > I see what Compaq's intentions are for VMS I have to assume the worst > (ie a continuation of current Digital policies that have priced any > new VMS kit right out of our reach). I would encourage everyone to check out the prices before you make decisions. You won't have to spend "lots" of money on MX. And yes, educational sites pay less for MX V5.0. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:32:27 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:32:20 -0400 (AST) From: Ben Armstrong Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available In-Reply-To: <34D6DDCF.450E966@tgsmc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Brad Hughes wrote: > Peter LANGSTOEGER wrote: > > > > In article <009C135B.67BBBDCD.1@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM>, Matt Madison writes: > > >MadGoat Software is pleased to announce the release of Message Exchange V5.0. > > > > Great. > > > > >As of V5.0, MX is now licensed software. > > > > Peng. And that was the dead of MX. What a disappointment > > Welcome to SHOVEWARE (M$ Exchange) and one more Good-Bye to OpenVMS. > > > > You can always continue to run MX v4.x; MX v5.0 has lots > of goodies we've all been clamoring for, more than PMDF or > certainly Multinet/UCX/TCPware, etc. You priced PMDF lately? But for those of us who have not been clamoring for these goodies, and who have been promoting MX as an email solution for our clients, we are faced with eventually being forced to abandon MX. The first issue to arise that would require us upgrading to MX 5.0 to fix (e.g. a compatibility issue with a later version of VMS, or a security fix) would probably mean the end of MX. We would probably go with whatever cost-effectively provides an email solution for our clients, whose use of MX is basically unsophisticated (mostly standalone VAX/VMS or Alpha/VMS systems without mailing lists). Therefore, UCX, which the vast majority of our clients already have, would be considered before purchasing MX v5.0. As for our own mailing list needs, we may end up with (ugh) an NT-based solution because in order to support a client-base on UCX SMTP, we would have to have it installed on our development machines so we have familiarity with the product. That would be the end of our lovely MX mailing lists. Enter NT. Ben. -- Ben Armstrong -. Medianet Development Group, BArmstrong@dymaxion.ca `-. Dymaxion Research Limited `- Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:37:06 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD3086.C9B86DE0.bergandi@adelman.com> From: Lou Bergandi Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: "'MX-List@MadGoat.com'" Subject: RE: MX V5.0 now available Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:33:29 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, February 03, 1998 8:26 AM, Alberto Meregalli (DIF) [SMTP:meregalli@cesi.it] wrote: > I think that it would be nice to explicitly explain how you decided to > change the status of MX. I think it's fair to say that in order to produce a product like MX you need to take into account things like: Purchase price of development machines Compiler licensing fees Hardware/software maintenance Utility costs not to mention numerous hours of Matt and Hunter's time adding in the new 5.0 features. I'm sure I'm missing other costs, but I have seen the price sheet for MX and it looks very reasonable to me. Lou bergandi@adelman.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:41:43 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:41:30 -0400 (AST) From: Ben Armstrong Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available In-Reply-To: <34D6E697.2FC64C79@MadGoat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Hunter Goatley wrote: > I would encourage everyone to check out the prices before you make > decisions. You won't have to spend "lots" of money on MX. And yes, > educational sites pay less for MX V5.0. Will there be any continued support of MX V4.x? i.e. will patches continue to be made available for bugs in the free version? Sure, educational sites pay less, but often the educational sites that are our clients are only on VMS because of our product, and are therefore standalone systems. They would not realize any benefit from your educational pricing. Furthermore, I doubt if any of them are really in need of the features in MX V5.0. Basically, I would like to be reassured that there is sufficient support for the older free version of MX so that we don't have to "make the switch". I think MX is a great piece of software and it has provided us with trouble-free service for many years. I think it would be a real shame if we ended up having to settle with UCX. Ben. -- Ben Armstrong -. Medianet Development Group, BArmstrong@dymaxion.ca `-. Dymaxion Research Limited `- Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:46:49 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:58:17 -0700 Message-ID: <199802031758.KAA05216@ael1.allianceelec.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: MX-List@MadGoat.com From: Barry Treahy Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: RE: MX V5.0 now available for $$$ I don't believe the issue is how much MX 5.0 costs, it is the fact that after MANY months of anticipation and delay, it is communicated that it is now a licensed, commercial product on the day of its release. Atleast if it had been shared that MX was becoming a commercial product when plans beyond 4.2 started, no one (like myself) would have had false expectations that it would remain free. Along the same theme, knowing that MX would become commercial forces a different light when making long term considerations for solutions. I can't speak for anyone else, but I use MX as a temporary solution for a shop that hasn't completely converted from VT's to desktop PC's. I suspect that when the last VT dies or is ripped out of the wall, everyone will be using a GUI based e-mail clients (like Eudora Lite, Netscape, Internet Explorer -- All FREE) that will completely eliminate the need to even bring inbound SMTP messages to a VMS machine... With the need to push messages on and off VMS gone, I can handle ALL my e-mail via a Linux box running a SMTP server, POP, IMAP, etc... Again, free. If I choose to spend money for a commercial product, I don't know that MX makes sense nor do I think that it is in-line with the industry momentum. I will fight the day I must bring up Microslouth Exchange, but there are still other options (ie. Notes). Regards, Barry At 05:25 PM 2/3/98 +0100, you wrote: >>PLEASE NOTE >>----------- >> >>As of V5.0, MX is now licensed software. A 30-day free evaluation license key >>is automatically registered when you install the kit. For information on >>ordering a permanent license key and a price list, please send an e-mail >>message to MX-Info@MadGoat.COM, and an automatic responder will return an >>order form and price list to you. >> >>-Matt >> >>-- >>Matthew Madison | MadGoat Software | PO Box 556, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 USA >>madison@madgoat.com http://www.madgoat.com >> > >I think that it would be nice to explicitly explain how you decided to >change the status of MX. > >thank you >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Alberto Meregalli, DIF tel. +39 2 2125 249 >CESI, Centro Elettrotecnico Sperimentale Italiano fax +39 2 2125 520 >Via Rubattino, 54 - I 20134 Milano E-mail: meregalli@cesi.it > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Treahy, Jr. Email: treahy@allianceelec.com Vice President Phone: (602) 483-9400 x325 FAX: (602) 443-3898 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alliance Electronics, Inc. * 7550 East Redfield Road * Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Semiconductor & Computer System Sales WWW: http://www.allianceelec.com Phone: (800) 608-9494 Email: sales@allianceelec.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... but its a DRY HEAT! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:52:29 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Worlton, Thomas" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: "'MX-List@MadGoat.com'" Subject: RE: MX V5.0 now available Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:53:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain MS Exchange Server on Windows NT does not support mailing lists. Tom Worlton > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Armstrong [SMTP:ben@bgpc.dymaxion.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 11:32 AM > To: MX-List@MadGoat.com > Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available > > On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Brad Hughes wrote: > > > Peter LANGSTOEGER wrote: > > > > > > In article <009C135B.67BBBDCD.1@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM>, Matt > Madison writes: > > > >MadGoat Software is pleased to announce the release of Message > Exchange V5.0. > > > > > > Great. > > > > > > >As of V5.0, MX is now licensed software. > > > > > > Peng. And that was the dead of MX. What a disappointment > > > Welcome to SHOVEWARE (M$ Exchange) and one more Good-Bye to > OpenVMS. > > > > > > > You can always continue to run MX v4.x; MX v5.0 has lots > > of goodies we've all been clamoring for, more than PMDF or > > certainly Multinet/UCX/TCPware, etc. You priced PMDF lately? > > But for those of us who have not been clamoring for these goodies, and > who have been promoting MX as an email solution for our clients, we > are faced with eventually being forced to abandon MX. The first issue > to arise that would require us upgrading to MX 5.0 to fix (e.g. a > compatibility issue with a later version of VMS, or a security fix) > would probably mean the end of MX. We would probably go with whatever > cost-effectively provides an email solution for our clients, whose use > of MX is basically unsophisticated (mostly standalone VAX/VMS or > Alpha/VMS systems without mailing lists). Therefore, UCX, which the > vast majority of our clients already have, would be considered before > purchasing MX v5.0. > > As for our own mailing list needs, we may end up with (ugh) an > NT-based solution because in order to support a client-base on UCX > SMTP, we would have to have it installed on our development machines > so we have familiarity with the product. That would be the end of > our lovely MX mailing lists. Enter NT. > > Ben. > -- > Ben Armstrong -. Medianet Development > Group, > BArmstrong@dymaxion.ca `-. Dymaxion Research Limited > `- Halifax, Nova Scotia, > Canada ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:52:49 -0600 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 17:53:28 BST From: Andy Harper Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: A.HARPER@kcl.ac.uk Message-ID: <009C1455.18A7C722.2289@alder.cc.kcl.ac.uk> Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available >> >As of V5.0, MX is now licensed software. >> >> Peng. And that was the dead of MX. What a disappointment >> Welcome to SHOVEWARE (M$ Exchange) and one more Good-Bye to OpenVMS. >> > >You can always continue to run MX v4.x; MX v5.0 has lots >of goodies we've all been clamoring for, more than PMDF or >certainly Multinet/UCX/TCPware, etc. You priced PMDF lately? I have no real objection to Matt and Hunter wanting to cash in the popularity of MX. After all, they have given their time frely over the years. What irks me though are two things: * Absolutely no indication of any new licencing rules prior to the release, leading everyone to believe that the terms would be as before. * Many people have contributed ideas and code over the years for features and, while that may not have been a large percentage of the total work, someone else now benefits from their work. I hope that all such people will be rewarded accordingly? Unlike our US counterparts, UK universities are not exactly cash rich and mine is certainly in no position to spend additional money. This means we'll be stuck with MX 4.0 which, of course, does not solve the spamming problems and support will gradually, if not already, die off. In effect, sites similar to ours will eventually have to pay for something like MX as VMS upgrades make the old versions incompatible in some way. So, good news on the release of MX 5.0 with all the good bits, but a bad move to introduce licencing so suddenly and without warning, especially to those who wanted the anti-spam stuff and have contributed over the years. I hope you will, though I'm sure you will not, reconsider this. As someone else said, maybe this is yet another reason why VMS goes down the pan... There really are no other good mail packages available cheaply (you get it for nothing on most other systems) so what's the incentive? My two cents (pence) for what it's worth. Andy Harper Kings College London ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:55:47 -0600 Message-ID: <01BD3089.64C31040.bergandi@adelman.com> From: Lou Bergandi Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: "'MX-List@MadGoat.com'" Subject: RE: MX V5.0 now available Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:52:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, February 03, 1998 9:32 AM, Ben Armstrong [SMTP:ben@bgpc.dymaxion.ca] wrote: > But for those of us who have not been clamoring for these goodies, and > who have been promoting MX as an email solution for our clients, we > are faced with eventually being forced to abandon MX. Let me see if I have this straight, you want a software product which is loaded with features and you want this for free? Maybe DEC should have tried that approach! >The first issue > to arise that would require us upgrading to MX 5.0 to fix (e.g. a > compatibility issue with a later version of VMS, or a security fix) > would probably mean the end of MX. Last I checked MX 4.2 still had the source code included and the distro kit linked at installation time. There really shouldn't be any reason that you can't fix the problem yourself if you feel that MX 5.0 is priced to high for you. > We would probably go with whatever > cost-effectively provides an email solution for our clients, whose use > of MX is basically unsophisticated (mostly standalone VAX/VMS or > Alpha/VMS systems without mailing lists). Therefore, UCX, which the > vast majority of our clients already have, would be considered before > purchasing MX v5.0. Isn't UCX a TCP/IP stack, yes it has SMTP support but it is bare bones. Not really an apples to apples comparison is it? > As for our own mailing list needs, we may end up with (ugh) an > NT-based solution because in order to support a client-base on UCX > SMTP, we would have to have it installed on our development machines > so we have familiarity with the product. That would be the end of > our lovely MX mailing lists. Enter NT. NT? Is the NT software free? lou bergandi@adelman.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:00:21 -0600 From: "Robert H. McClanahan" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:00:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: MX V5.0 now available In-Reply-To: <01BD3086.C9B86DE0.bergandi@adelman.com> On 3 Feb 98 at 9:33, Lou Bergandi wrote: > On Tuesday, February 03, 1998 8:26 AM, Alberto Meregalli (DIF) > [SMTP:meregalli@cesi.it] wrote: > > I think that it would be nice to explicitly explain how you decided to > > change the status of MX. > > I think it's fair to say that in order to produce a product like MX you need > to take into account things like: > Purchase price of development machines > Compiler licensing fees > Hardware/software maintenance > Utility costs > not to mention numerous hours of Matt and Hunter's time adding in the new 5.0 > features. I'm sure I'm missing other costs, but I have seen the price sheet > for MX and it looks very reasonable to me. > > Lou > bergandi@adelman.com I'll have to say that I was initially surprised to see the change. Last night I pondered on it for a long time (yes, I do have a life, but this really caught me off-guard). Feelings ran from shocked to betrayed and everywhere along the way (OK, so I'm sensitive about these things). But this morning, I remembered how many times that I was on the verge of offering Matt and Hunter some money to help support the effort (and there have been several occasions). This change of status is the same thing, only at their request this time. Trust me, my company has gotten far more that $1999.00 worth of use out of MX over the years. So, I'll add my "second" to Lou's comments above and say that it seems reasonable to me (or perhaps I should say "my company" - $1999 is still a *lot* of money to me personally). I'm in, RHM +--+ Robert H. McClanahan, Mgr, Tech Info Systems, rmcclanahan@aecc.com <[]>< Arkansas Electric Coop Corp, PO Box 194208, Little Rock, AR 72219-4208 USA "The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God." C.S. Lewis ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:09:29 -0600 Message-ID: From: Noah Hart Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: "'MX-List@MadGoat.com'" Subject: RE: MX V5.0 now available Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:09:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain First a thank you to Matt, Hunter, the MadGoat archives and all those adding support over the years. I don't have a real problem with MX becomming commercialware, however I am a little put off by the suddeness of the announcement. Ver 5.0 has been talked about for quite a while, and if I had known it was going to cost $500 I could have made budget arrangements. As it stands now, I am revlocked at 4.2 until the next fiscal year. Bad move, this should have been communicated _much_ earlier. Noah Hart, Systems Administrator Lipman Insurance Administrators, Inc. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:17:50 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 10:17:34 -0800 Sender: Dan Wing From: dwing@fuggles.com Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-LIST@MADGOAT.COM Message-ID: <980203101734.20290c51@Cisco.COM> Subject: RE: MX V5.0 now available >>The first issue >> to arise that would require us upgrading to MX 5.0 to fix (e.g. a >> compatibility issue with a later version of VMS, or a security fix) >> would probably mean the end of MX. > >Last I checked MX 4.2 still had the source code included and >the distro kit linked at installation time. There really shouldn't >be any reason that you can't fix the problem yourself if you feel >that MX 5.0 is priced to high for you. And DEC gives away the BLISS compiler, as well. This means that the code people have contributed to MX is all available, for free, to everyone. You can make changes to MX, you simply can't distribute the changes (per V3 or V4's copyright restrictions, if I recall correctly). -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:37:04 -0600 Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980203133653.006bfc9c@mailcenter.biochem.purdue.edu> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 13:36:53 -0500 To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU From: Rick Westerman Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Hunter and Matt. Seems like you are getting a bunch of heat about MX's new cost. I, for one, don't have many problems with the cost because MX is such a good product. While there are just as good free products I would have to switch to Unix or perhaps NT in order to use them -- not fun at all. However I was wondering why you have: a) A price for a single cluster license b) A price for a company/campus-wide license c) An educational price on (b) But no educational price on (a). Being the only VMS/MX based mail server at Purdue I really don't need options (b) or (c) but would like an educational price on (a), if possible. Although we can afford (a), money is, of course, always tight and the first thing my boss will ask is if there is an educational discount. Thank you, -- Rick Rick Westerman System Manager of the Ag Campus Lab. for westerm@purdue.edu Computational Biology (ACLCB) & Sys. Mgr. Phone: (765) 494-0505 of the Biochemistry department BCHM bldg. FAX: (765) 494-7897 Purdue Univ. W. Lafayette, IN 47907 href="http://www.biochem.purdue.edu/~westerm" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:38:59 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:38:50 -0400 (AST) From: Ben Armstrong Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: "'MX-List@MadGoat.com'" Subject: RE: MX V5.0 now available In-Reply-To: <01BD3089.64C31040.bergandi@adelman.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Lou Bergandi wrote: > Let me see if I have this straight, you want a software product which > is loaded with features and you want this for free? Maybe DEC should > have tried that approach! No, I don't. I just want a solution that works. Back when we first examined UCX, it didn't work, so we went with MX. UCX now works, and is free (or rather, our clients already have it). There is no reason we could not switch to UCX today, except MX has a better track-record. > Last I checked MX 4.2 still had the source code included and > the distro kit linked at installation time. There really shouldn't > be any reason that you can't fix the problem yourself if you feel > that MX 5.0 is priced to high for you. Yes, there is a reason. It is a matter of the relative importance to us to keep MX in the picture when there are comparable solutions available out there for free. The day we start having to spend our own development dollars on fixing a product we didn't write, and which we have no experience in maintaining is the day we go with an alternative that is lower maintenance (i.e. UCX). In fact, had we not already invested in MX so heavily up to now, we would start deploying UCX SMTP today. > Isn't UCX a TCP/IP stack, yes it has SMTP support but it is bare bones. > Not really an apples to apples comparison is it? I have never argued that MX v5.0 should be free. It is certainly packed with features worth paying for ... but not worth it for us. Our clients are unsophisticated in their use of MX. So long as email is reliably delivered to and from their site, they are happy. > NT? Is the NT software free? No. But that isn't the issue. I said our own (i.e. the software division's) mailing list needs, which is different from our clients' needs. They don't use MX mailing lists. We do. Price isn't the factor for meeting our own needs ... ease of support is. And if we go with MX for our clients for price factors, we will end up with NT because of internal support factors (no point supporting MX when our clients no longer use it ... but there is a point in supporting an NT-based solution, which the hardware sales/support division sells to their own customer base, which is completely disjoint from our own). Ben -- Ben Armstrong -. Medianet Development Group, BArmstrong@dymaxion.ca `-. Dymaxion Research Limited `- Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:42:39 -0600 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:42:32 -0400 (AST) From: Ben Armstrong Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: mx-list@madgoat.com Subject: RE: MX V5.0 now available In-Reply-To: <980203101734.20290c51@Cisco.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 3 Feb 1998 dwing@fuggles.com wrote: > And DEC gives away the BLISS compiler, as well. This means that the > code people have contributed to MX is all available, for free, to > everyone. You can make changes to MX, you simply can't distribute > the changes (per V3 or V4's copyright restrictions, if I recall > correctly). That's the part I'd like to see change. Delegate control of the free version to a group of people willing to support it. Otherwise, it's the end of the line for us (and for the one-hundred-or-so media centers or school boards which are our clients who have been happy MX users until now). Who knows, I might even be able to contribute to such a group. However, I'm certainly not in a position to "go it on my own". Ben. -- Ben Armstrong -. Medianet Development Group, BArmstrong@dymaxion.ca `-. Dymaxion Research Limited `- Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 12:51:48 -0600 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:52:21 -0600 (MDT) From: David Richardson Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <01IT52KIERUA00X878@BARNEY.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > >I would encourage everyone to check out the prices before you make >decisions. You won't have to spend "lots" of money on MX. And yes, >educational sites pay less for MX V5.0. > >Hunter >------ >Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ > http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html The problem is that, in the educational sector we get to make a nickel ($0.05 coin) to the work of a $10.00 bill. My college just became private last September, with a board of directors, and in the future will not be part of government, so in the next years that nickel will be doing the work of a $20.00 bill. "Lots" is relative. In the past the funds for equipment and services have been different pools than the funds for paying employees, and ne'er the twain shall meet. As a result of that, and some other forces, we are looking into migrating to NT. It is going to be really difficult to convince my management that buying any software for our VMS systems is worthwile. When you add to this that we internally have to have our senior budget committee approve any line item purchase over $1000.00 Canadian (About $700.00 US) and it will become nearly impossible, unless there will be an NT version that we can get credit towards later. (I'm not happy with the situation wrt LEAVING VMS -- although there is good reason to ADD NT to our mix of systems--, but there isn't a lot that I can do about it.) So it looks like MX 4.2 will be where we stay, unless we can greatly increase the Educational discounts. Hunter: Are you planning an NT version? Would you consider lower license costs for Educational clients? Perhaps for version x.y keeping 50% discount, for x.y-1 75% discount, and for x-1.* (after 6.0) 95%+. Perhaps consider having different levels of licences as well: we have 4 campuses with VMS systems, and we probably need MX on 2 of our campuses, perhaps on all 4, for store and forwarding, and address rewriting, but only need one campus to have mail servers/distribution lists. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Richardson (403) 751-3278 | My Personal opinions Network Analyst Fax (403) 751-3375 | only. Alberta Vocational College Lesser Slave Lake. | David.Richardson@GRDA.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA | P.S. A little about us: we have 22 campuses in 22 communities in northern Alberta: 4 campuses have VMS systems on them. About 15 campuses are 4 room Atco Trailers with 3-5 Windows/Windows95 machines. Our WAN reaches only 5 campuses, and there are a total of only about 2000 Full Time Equivalent students and staff on all campuses. We have plans to implement a VPN though the internet, with NT servers on all campuses through out our service region. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:08:03 -0600 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:01:51 EST-10EST From: Daiajo Tibdixious MACS <"svs::svist070"@stvincents.COM.AU> Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C14DC.60968460.139@stvincents.com.au> Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available 3 Feb 98 11:20:31 GMT eplan@kapsch.co.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER) >>Matt Madison writes: >>MadGoat Software is pleased to announce the release of Message Exchange V5.0. >Great. Ditto. >>As of V5.0, MX is now licensed software. >Peng. And that was the dead of MX. What a disappointment >Welcome to SHOVEWARE (M$ Exchange) and one more Good-Bye to OpenVMS. Can you say "Knee Jerk" in under 1 second? While I agree that any suspicision that it might have become licenced should have been in the advance notice, but the price is mind blowingly low considering what's involved, and I'm pleased to see a lack of copying of DEC's license policies - that would be the death knell of MX, or any S/W product for that matter. I've actually had suppliers say "Well that's what DECs policy is." to justify their own outlandish pricing. As it is, a license and cost will make pointy-haired managers more likely to see it as a supported product, (yet still be affordable), based on the popular but false assumption that free means unsupported. -- dTibdixious@stvincents.com.au ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 23:32:33 -0600 Sender: madison@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 21:34:35 -0800 From: Matt Madison Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: mx-list@MadGoat.COM Message-ID: <009C1473.FCA5EBC5.65@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM> Subject: The licensing change for MX V5.0 Rather than responding to the individual comments and questions about our decision to "go commercial" with MX V5.0, and thus prolong the discussion here on the list, let me make a few general statements that hopefully will address the concerns that were raised. My apologies in advance for the length of this message. Charging for V5.0 ----------------- The decision to charge for the new release was not an easy one to make. Hunter and I have both enjoyed working on MX over the years, but it is work and the time and effort we have put into this new release has been substantial. And I have spent a considerable sum out of my own pocket to fund this development with equipment and software purchases, as well. We'd at least like to recoup these costs. The amount we're asking for the package shouldn't give anyone sticker shock, I hope. If you can find comparable functionality for less, I'd like to hear about it. As for the other freeware MadGoat packages -- we have no plans on changing their status. They will continue to be available as copyrighted freeware, with licensing terms available for anyone who wants to incorporate them in their commercial works (just as before). Suddenness of the announcement ------------------------------ I'm sorry that the announcement seemed so sudden, but setting everything up took a lot longer than we expected, and we didn't want to announce the change here until everything was ready. It all came together on Monday, and rather than delay the release any further, we thought it would be best to get 5.0 out the door and announce the licensing change at the same time. MX V4.2 support --------------- As has been mentioned, prior versions of MX will continue to be available as freeware, with complete source code. Folks that cannot upgrade to V5.0, for whatever reason, are free to continue to use V4.2 and may modify it (for their own use) as much as they like. MX for NT --------- We do have an NT development project underway. I'll have more to say on that later, as the project progresses further. Before anyone asks, it will probably not be freeware. :-) Please direct any followups on this topic directly to me and/or Hunter. If you have specific pricing or ordering questions, please follow up to sales@MadGoat.Com. Thanks, -Matt -- Matthew Madison | MadGoat Software | PO Box 556, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 USA madison@madgoat.com http://www.madgoat.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 23:40:02 -0600 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:39:14 EST From: Robert Byer Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C148D.C8456E40.7@mail.all-net.net> Subject: RE: The licensing change for MX V5.0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I can understand your reasons and I only have one question/observation to make. What support if any will their be for MX v5.0 if we purchase the license? Will their be an upgrade option? If the support for v5.0 is just going to be the usual mailing list and news group then I don't think it is fair to have the public at large to support your now commercial package if you don't plan on some kind of support besides the usual sources. +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Robert Alan Byer | A-Com Computing, Inc. | | Vice-President | 115 W. Washington Street, Suite 1165 | | A-Com Computing, Inc. | Indianapolis, IN 46204 | | Phone: (317)673-4204 | http://www.all-net.net/ | +------------------------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | byer@mail.all-net.net | I don't want to take over the world, | | http://www.all-net.net/~byer | just my own little part of it. | +------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Send an E-mail request to obtain my PGP key. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNNe4KKVSqzlBVJbBAQG/ywgAg8oMd0ZNRGaMZqB/PPgtSWopQOnnJiyY MKx5g5XWr2crVnEb6gqi72FDc4wJBtrV/Q40FijOqus3i0LYf2gY5yTv8aLj3PJK NnMV9kUVWHLXG8odyR7NvyzLogg3oPRN/WjGvWGE5AqssShQ1vk4Ra2ms3e0+7in O0rFhDtdxahBCqlIbbP16vuaVWVybnNai6Rtorq1DrOfTbh9F6+jBNh2418qMUBk 7kury6jP+lz5n3z2/acoJxfP8MFEWVukwIhJDo8axnchIdvg+gK4Q8YaA9VFrttV 70lQZdygXpSYHOmyHiN3OydAAvbVCNgGRjedQZTxiuGOtvKD2QjTEQ== =kXmZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 01:57:46 -0600 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 07:30:55 GMT/BST From: nic Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@madgoat.com CC: nic@python.demon.co.uk Message-ID: <009C14C7.4AC2F340.1@python.demon.co.uk> Subject: RE: Re: MX V5.0 now available >From: Hunter Goatley > >I would encourage everyone to check out the prices before you make >decisions. You won't have to spend "lots" of money on MX. And yes, >educational sites pay less for MX V5.0. What about me? I've a 'kitchen' VAX with no budget? nic -- -- We are the architects, not the victims, of our own destiny -- -- nic nic at python.demon.co.uk http://www.python.demon.co.uk/ -- -- Bolton, UK website http://www.bolton.ac.uk/bolton/ -- -- Digital Equipment VAX hardware running OpenVMS/X-Windows-Motif -- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 02:57:43 -0600 From: Leyrat@criuc.unicaen.fr Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:57:30 +0200 To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: Leyrat@criuc.unicaen.fr Message-ID: <009C14DB.C56BE896.153@clenche.msh.unicaen.fr> Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available Although I red Matt's global response, I want to give my feelings: - it seems justificated for me that a software like MX does have a price, though, as for other users the very late announcement produces a real budget problem, and many difficulties to explain this sudden change to my director. - So, for us, as I think for others, it will be a new incitation to abandon VMS more quickly (and with many regrets). - I think too that there could be a single educational license's price. - Unfortunately, I consider impossible to remain with 4.2 : 5.0 antispamming features are imprescindible because of the spam attacks we are suffering. ******************************************************************************* Jacques LEYRAT ! Tel: 02 31 56 62 12 Centre de Ressources Informatiques (C.R.I.U.C) ! Universite de Caen ! Fax: 02 31 44 58 54 14032 Caen Cedex ! FRANCE !e-mail: Leyrat@criuc.unicaen.fr ******************************************************************************* ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 06:19:27 -0600 From: eplan@kapsch.co.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER) Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available Date: 4 Feb 98 12:04:19 GMT Message-ID: <34d85943.0@nevada.kapsch.co.at> Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <009C141A.93BF721A.3@Argent-Software.com>, john@Argent-Software.com writes: >>>As of V5.0, MX is now licensed software. >> >>Peng. And that was the dead of MX. What a disappointment >>Welcome to SHOVEWARE (M$ Exchange) and one more Good-Bye to OpenVMS. > >M$ Exchange is NOT free!!! But it's there for the Personal Crap (WFW with MS-Mail, Outlook, ...) anyway. M$Exc is/was just not ready for the/a Company Mail-Server (RFC-compliant SMTP, RFC-compliant POP3, RFC-compliant IMAP4, Path-Route Flexibility, SPAMblocking and so on). And now it never minds ("and we now can all use public folders")... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER Tel. +43 1 81111-2382 Network and OpenVMS system manager Fax. +43 1 81111-888 Technical Computer Center (ADV) E-mail eplan@kapsch.net <<< KAPSCH AG Wagenseilgasse 1 PSImail PSI%(0232)281001141::EPLAN A-1121 VIENNA AUSTRIA "I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:39:33 -0600 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 8:39:27 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980204083927.202be944@Cisco.COM> Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available >- Unfortunately, I consider impossible to remain with 4.2 : 5.0 antispamming >features are imprescindible because of the spam attacks we are suffering. David Cathey's anti-spam tool works with MX V4.2. Contact him or check the MX archives for more information. -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:10:56 -0600 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:09:40 -0500 From: "Brian Tillman, x8425" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C14EE.3BBD5C60.27@swdev.si.com> Subject: RE: The licensing change for MX V5.0 >Please direct any followups on this topic directly to me and/or Hunter. If >you have specific pricing or ordering questions, please follow up to >sales@MadGoat.Com. Just make sure, when you reply, that the message doesn't appear to come from "sales@MadGoat.Com". We have MX set up to reject all addresses of the form "sales@*"! :-) -- Brian Tillman Internet: tillman_brian at si.com Smiths Industries, Inc. tillman at swdev.si.com 4141 Eastern Ave., MS239 Addresses modified to prevent Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 SPAM. Replace "at" with "@" This opinion doesn't represent that of my company ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 12:20:26 -0600 From: welchb@woods.uml.edu (Brendan Welch, W1LPG) Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available Date: 4 Feb 98 11:20:03 -0500 Message-ID: <1998Feb4.112003.1@aspen> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <009C1455.18A7C722.2289@alder.cc.kcl.ac.uk>, Andy Harper writes: >>> >As of V5.0, MX is now licensed software. > Kings College London Let me boldly proclaim my cowardice, and not say anything (except indeed thanks to Hunter and Dan and Matt). Admittedly there are some good points being made by the complainants. I want to point out a train of thought, which I claim is tangential to this thread, and some of you may find irrelevant: Consider what things in life are "free", and how they have changed our lives; in particular, how about these? 1) television (OK, not true in UK) 2) Unix especially compared to "What if VMS had been "free"? " 3) Internet 4) Gee, even the phone company is now offering a lower-cost Internet telephone service. -- Brendan Welch, system analyst, UMass-Lowell, W1LPG, welchb@woods.uml.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 14:17:27 -0600 Sender: BRAD Message-ID: <34D85C3A.FF235F2@tgsmc.com> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 12:16:58 -0800 From: Brad Hughes Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: The licensing change for MX V5.0 References: <009C1473.FCA5EBC5.65@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Matt Madison wrote: > ... As my initial posting on this topic yesterday was a bit glib, let me convey my support for Matt and Hunter's change in policy in a more subdued manner, and by bringing up a point yet to be made here. We've been running MX for a long time, and every once in a while I'll remark to someone that i just can't believe it's free. I believe that the decision to charge for MX can only improve the product in the long run. I have no feel for whether the decision to wait until after the first of the year was necessary, but trust that the decision was not made lightly. One point not brought up yet is security. Sure, one can switch to Linux and run sendmail, or run MS Exchange on NT, but sendmail is a security hole masquerading as a program, and given the litany of security lapses in Microsoft products, one might want to think twice about migrating to Exchange. In addition, MX's SMTP over DECNET feature adds a layer of security between VMS machines and the internet, and MX v5.0's header rewriting feature can be a useful security tool as well. If security is not a concern, then sendmail or Exchange may work fine for you (forgetting scalability for the moment), but then so would MX v4. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:03:01 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 16:35:21 -0600 Message-ID: <34D898C9.1F8EC078@MadGoat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Vance R. Haemmerle wrote: > > In article <009C1455.18A7C722.2289@alder.cc.kcl.ac.uk>, > Andy Harper wrote: > > > > * Absolutely no indication of any new licencing rules prior to the release, > > leading everyone to believe that the terms would be as before. > > > > At Anahiem DECUS (first week of November) at the Madgoat BOF, Hunter let > it be known that MX V5.0 would become licensed software and asked that we > all keep this information to ourselves so that he could make the announcement > on the list. I had no idea it would take three months though. > We didn't either. As Matt said, it took a lot longer than anticipated to get the business set up, and we felt it best to wait until everything was in place before posting the announcement. That just happened on Monday. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:03:11 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: Year 2000?? Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 16:44:40 -0600 Message-ID: <34D89AF8.612137B6@MadGoat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Greg Zeus wrote: > > Just a wondering... I'm running MX Version 4.1 Is this version year > 2000 compliant?? If not, is there a compliant version available? > MX uses normal VMS time routines for everything, so all versions of MX are Y2K compliant. There are no two-digit years in MX, no C RTL functions called, just pure VMS system services and library routines. The only exception is the local delivery to MM, the no-longer-supported MultiNet mailer. It uses two-digit years. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:03:17 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: Idea - MX lite? Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 16:42:54 -0600 Message-ID: <34D89A8E.433CB351@MadGoat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Nigel Arnot wrote: > > First, I don't object to the principle of MX going commercial. > It's just a shame that in present circumstances, that decision > has locked me into 4.2 for at least the next six months. > We had anticipated being able to make the announcement a lot sooner, but it takes a while to set up a company (a lot longer than we thought it would take). > This would basically be MX 4.2 plus the antispam feature of 5.0 > for the good of the entire net community. > Nice idea, but the anti-spam stuff in one of the things that took a lot of time and effort to do. MX-Lite *is* MX V4.2. > Unless the code base has changed drastically between the versions, > this might not be hard. It might also be a good commercial move: > maybe some sites currently using UCX or PMDF might download the > lite version and like what they get enough to buy the full one. > Nice idea again, but if that were the case, I would think they'd have tried MX long before now. For some current PMDF users, the only reason they use PMDF instead of MX is *because* MX was free. > And another longer-term idea: what about an MX derivative to > run on NT? As has been pointed out. M$ exchange isn't exactly > free, especially if you aren't a university. > As Matt mentioned in a post yesterday, MX on NT is a project that we're working on now.... Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:45:12 -0600 Message-ID: <9802042351.AA20126@krypton.che.ilstu.edu> From: "Reef Morse" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: Subject: Missed the important announcement ... Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:42:04 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What is the cost of MX 5.0? My old VMS machines (VAXStation 3100s) here are soon to be retired, so I don't want to throw any more money at them than is necessary. But, the improvements sound interesting. Can you repost, or just send the information to me directly? Thanks, Reef ********************************************************** * Reef (Philip D., II) Morse Voice (309) 438-5595 * * Department of Chemistry FAX (309) 438-5538 * * Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-4160 * * Home voice and FAX (309) 829-9257 * * Web page http://www.scientific-software.com * ********************************************************** ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 20:33:40 -0600 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 21:33:34 EST From: "Scott C. Jensen" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-LIST@MADGOAT.COM CC: jensen@ILP.MIT.EDU Message-ID: <009C153D.02321F90.34@ILP.MIT.EDU> Subject: Is IMAP in MX's future? Matt/Hunter: Can I ask if you have any plans to put an IMAP server in the MX package? And if so, when? I have several users who would like to make use of IMAP on our VMS machine as soon as possible. As far as I've been able to determine, the only IMAP server for VMS available now is the one from Innosoft. Although it would be essentially free for us (several unused licenses available on our campus), the idea of moving from MX to PMDF does not thrill me. I've nothing against PMDF, but I've had too much good luck with MX to want to use anything else. I also wanted to chime in to the debate over MX now costing $: I have to say that, aside from the lack of any early warning, I don't have a big problem with MX now being commercial, especially at the price being asked for it. The IMAP issue aside, I'm willing to pay $500 for the new version, and not have to move to another package. I'm hoping the IMAP issue does not force us to do so anyway. Many thanks to you both for your past and continuing work on the product. ---SCJ Scott C. Jensen Manager, Office of Information Systems MIT Corporate Relations - Industrial Liaison Program Room E38-576 292 Main Street Cambridge, MA 02139 617/253-0441 FAX: 617/258-0150 Email: jensen@mit.edu ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 21:33:30 -0600 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 19:33:17 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: JENSEN@ILP.MIT.EDU Message-ID: <980204193317.20298b7b@Cisco.COM> Subject: RE: Is IMAP in MX's future? > Can I ask if you have any plans to put an IMAP server in the MX >package? And if so, when? I have several users who would like to make use >of IMAP on our VMS machine as soon as possible. As far as I've been able >to determine, the only IMAP server for VMS available now is the one from >Innosoft. Although it would be essentially free for us (several unused >licenses available on our campus), the idea of moving from MX to PMDF does >not thrill me. I don't think it is necessary to install or use PMDF's mail functionality to use their IMAP server -- check with Innosoft. I'm sure you can just use their IMAP (and POP3) server and let MX continue to handle your SMTP mail. >I've nothing against PMDF, but I've had too much good luck >with MX to want to use anything else. On the Info-MultiNet mailing list, Process Software has indicated that IMAP will be part of the next version of TCPware and the next version of MultiNet. So, unless you're stuck running one of the inferior TCP/IP implementations, you're all set! -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:42:49 -0600 Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 10:38:06 GMT From: Andy Harper Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: A.HARPER@kcl.ac.uk Message-ID: <009C15AA.9B641D7C.2718@alder.cc.kcl.ac.uk> Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available Vance R. Haemmerle wrote: > > In article <009C1455.18A7C722.2289@alder.cc.kcl.ac.uk>, > Andy Harper wrote: > > > > * Absolutely no indication of any new licencing rules prior to the release, > > leading everyone to believe that the terms would be as before. > > > > At Anahiem DECUS (first week of November) at the Madgoat BOF, Hunter let > it be known that MX V5.0 would become licensed software and asked that we > all keep this information to ourselves so that he could make the announcement > on the list. I had no idea it would take three months though. Hmm, I must admit I haven't found it terribly easy to commute to this from the UK and hear the news .. Regards, Andy Harper Kings College London ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 04:45:50 -0600 Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 10:34:24 GMT From: Andy Harper Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: A.HARPER@kcl.ac.uk Message-ID: <009C15AA.172E985C.2716@alder.cc.kcl.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Is IMAP in MX's future? >> Can I ask if you have any plans to put an IMAP server in the MX >>package? And if so, when? I have several users who would like to make use >>of IMAP on our VMS machine as soon as possible. As far as I've been able >>to determine, the only IMAP server for VMS available now is the one from >>Innosoft. Although it would be essentially free for us (several unused >>licenses available on our campus), the idea of moving from MX to PMDF does >>not thrill me. > >I don't think it is necessary to install or use PMDF's mail >functionality to use their IMAP server -- check with Innosoft. I'm >sure you can just use their IMAP (and POP3) server and let MX continue >to handle your SMTP mail. A cheaper option is to get my VMS PINE port which comes with a free IMAP server that runs over NETLIB. Admittedly only IMAP2 bis at present (so it won't work with netscape) but imap4 is 'under development'... See http://alder.cc.kcl.ac.uk/pine-vms/ Regards, Andy Harper Kings College London ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 06:49:41 -0600 Message-ID: <34D9B4FD.214@grenoble.sema.fr> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 13:47:57 +0100 From: Hubert PERES Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: more simple address ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit hello, back to a technical question (MX 4 and/or MX 5 !) : I would like, for simplicity, to use addresses without the local domain name, for example it would be nice to use => fred instead of => fred@my_domain In fact, if I use just "fred" as an address, fred@my_domain gets a mail with an incorrect header ("Invalid TO: header") and the field CC: is left blank (nothing inside). So, instead of a rule like : Rewrite "<{user}@{host}.xxx.com>" => "<{user}@here>" is it possible to have : Rewrite "<{user}>" => "<{user}@here>" Thanks, -- "Fast, Cheap, Secure. Pick two." Hubert PERES, Sema Group Centre de Grenoble (33) 4 76 41 47 23 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 07:32:26 -0600 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 08:31:27 -0500 From: "Brian Tillman, x8425" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C1598.EA71C840.69@swdev.si.com> Subject: RE: Is IMAP in MX's future? >As far as I've been able to determine, the only IMAP server for VMS available >now is the one from Innosoft. I believe the freeware Pine for VMS contains an IMAP server. -- Brian Tillman Internet: tillman_brian at si.com Smiths Industries, Inc. tillman at swdev.si.com 4141 Eastern Ave., MS239 Addresses modified to prevent Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 SPAM. Replace "at" with "@" This opinion doesn't represent that of my company ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 07:39:09 -0600 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:19:35 +0100 From: "GWDVMS::MOELLER" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com, madison@MadGoat.COM CC: MOELLER@gwdg.de Subject: RE: The licensing change for MX V5.0 >[...] > As has been mentioned, prior versions of MX will continue to be available > as freeware, with complete source code. Folks that cannot upgrade to V5.0, > for whatever reason, are free to continue to use V4.2 and may modify it (for > their own use) as much as they like. >[...] Hardly anyone is using MX V4.2 "as released" - I'd very much appreciate if the _current_ V4.2 source (including the "MX Patches" to SMTP_SERVER and MX_LOCAL) was available as the starting point for self-maintenance. Sigh. Wolfgang J. Moeller, Tel. +49 551 2011516 or -510, moeller@gwdvms.dnet.gwdg.de GWDG, D-37077 Goettingen, F.R.Germany | Disclaimer: No claim intended! ----- ----- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:06:59 -0600 Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 13:27:10 GMT From: Chris.Sharman@ccagroup.co.uk Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@madgoat.com CC: Chris.Sharman@ccagroup.co.uk Message-ID: <009C15C2.39CFE682.2@ccagroup.co.uk> Subject: Re: MX V5.0 now available >> > * Absolutely no indication of any new licencing rules prior to the release, >> > leading everyone to believe that the terms would be as before. >> > >> >> At Anahiem DECUS (first week of November) at the Madgoat BOF, Hunter let >> it be known that MX V5.0 would become licensed software and asked that we >> all keep this information to ourselves so that he could make the announcement >> on the list. I had no idea it would take three months though. > > Hmm, I must admit I haven't found it terribly easy to commute to this from > the UK and hear the news .. Too true. And I haven't been to a DECUS UK conference since it was taken over by the marketdroids a few years back. ______________________________________________________________________ Chris Sharman Chris.Sharman@CCAgroup.co.uk CCA Stationery Ltd, Eastway, Fulwood, Preston, Lancashire, PR2 9WS. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:12:03 -0600 Sender: root Message-ID: <34DA373E.FD11ED2D@earlham.edu> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 17:03:42 -0500 From: Noah Chanin Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mx-list@madgoat.com Subject: L-Soft Listerv 1.8c + Mx 4.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am hoping that there is someone out there that has had this same experience. I am running MX 4.2 with L-soft listserv 1.8c. (The folks I've talked to at L-soft don't know VMS, multinet, or MX). Anyway, I have a VAX3450 running VMS 6.1 and Listserv 1.8c (and Multinet 4.0c). There are 4 Listserv lists (and 367 MLF lists), and each time a Listserv message is delivered, I get the following (the message still gets delivered). >The enclosed mail file has been identified as a delivery error for list >QUAKER-L because it was sent to the reserved 'owner-quaker-l' mailbox. > >------------------------------ Message in error ----------------------------- >Received: from tian.earlham.edu (LOCALHOST) by tian.earlham.edu (MX V4.2 VAX) > with SMTP; Mon, 02 Feb 1998 08:58:20 EST >Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 08:58:50 ECT >Reply-To: SingAlongs@AOL.COM >Sender: "Quaker concerns re community, spirituality, etc." > >From: Julie Chilton >Subject: Re: All religions the same (?) >To: QUAKER-L@TIAN.EARLHAM.EDU ----- I have sent all my config files to Lsoft and they haven't been able to tell me much of anything. It looks like there if some sort of aliasising going on, but it isn't something I am aware of. If you have seen this problem, please let me know. Know that I write this, I realize I should probably turn MX_LSV_DEBUG=true, but I haven't yet. Any other advice appreciated. Thank you very much. -Noah Chanin ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 16:17:50 -0600 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:17:44 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980205141744.2029a052@Cisco.COM> Subject: RE: L-Soft Listerv 1.8c + Mx 4.2 >I am hoping that there is someone out there that has had this same >experience. I am running MX 4.2 with L-soft listserv 1.8c. (The folks >I've talked to at L-soft don't know VMS, multinet, or MX). Try to talk to other people at L-Soft. I've talked to one salesperson and exchanged email serveral times with Eric Thomas, and both of them knew VMS and MX. -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:00:38 -0600 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 17:00:32 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C15E0.08481624.31@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Is IMAP in MX's future? Dan Wing writes: > >On the Info-MultiNet mailing list, Process Software has indicated that >IMAP will be part of the next version of TCPware and the next version >of MultiNet. > An IMAP4 server is included in TCPware V5.3 (shipping since November) and will be included in MultiNet V4.1, due for release sometime in March. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 02:40:38 -0600 Message-ID: <34DACC23.94C@grenoble.sema.fr> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:38:59 +0100 From: Hubert PERES Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mx-list@madgoat.com Subject: 30-day registration key, please ! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Help ! I just installed MX050, but no 30-day free license key is automatically registered as it should be ==> crash. And now I'm back to mx042 (after one night of work and headache). Please, please, a 30-day key ! -- "Fast, Cheap, Secure. Pick two." Hubert PERES, Sema Group Centre de Grenoble (33) 4 76 41 47 23 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:31:14 -0600 Message-ID: <34DB9D70.ACA8B22D@nlu.edu> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 17:32:00 -0600 From: Chance Eppinette Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: smtp server dieing. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, I have been running MX V4.2 AXP for some time. Suddenly this started happening today (on Friday afternoon naturally). The SMTP SERVER process of MX started bombing out. It would only stay up for several seconds before going away and I found in the logs the following exit status. Does anyone know what this is? The watchdog process relaunched the server but only to have it go back down shortly afterwards. 6-FEB-1998 17:14:52.60: MX SMTP Server (pid 00000504) starting 6-FEB-1998 17:16:19.63: MX SMTP Server (pid 00000504) exiting, status = 10248074 Thanks for your help, Chance Eppinette -- +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+ | | | Chance W. Eppinette Northeast Louisiana University | | Network Manager Computing Center | | Monroe, LA 71209 | | email: eppinette@nlu.edu | | phone: (318) 342-5021 fax: (318) 342-5018 | | office: Admin 1-155A "G R A Y V I P E R" | | | +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:35:25 -0600 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:35:12 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C16AE.0AB28CE1.15@goat.process.com> Subject: RE: smtp server dieing. Chance Eppinette writes: > >The SMTP SERVER process of MX started bombing out. It would only >stay up for several seconds before going away and I found in the logs >the following exit status. Does anyone know what this is? >The watchdog process relaunched the server but only to have it go >back down shortly afterwards. > > >6-FEB-1998 17:14:52.60: MX SMTP Server (pid 00000504) starting >6-FEB-1998 17:16:19.63: MX SMTP Server (pid 00000504) exiting, >status = 10248074 > $ write sys$output f$message(%x0248074) %STR-F-STRTOOLON, string is too long (greater than 65535) $ This is fixed in the SMTP_SERVER.ALPHA_EXE available on ftp.madgoat.com in [.MX.MX042.PATCH]. The problem is a message coming in with a To: or CC: header longer than 64K bytes (a SPAM message). Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 09:08:02 -0600 Message-ID: <34DC7A29.46671111@nlu.edu> Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 09:13:46 -0600 From: "Chance W. Eppinette" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: smtp server dieing. References: <009C16AE.0AB28CE1.15@goat.process.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hunter Goatley wrote: > Chance Eppinette writes: > > > >The SMTP SERVER process of MX started bombing out. It would only > >stay up for several seconds before going away and I found in the logs > > >the following exit status. Does anyone know what this is? > >The watchdog process relaunched the server but only to have it go > >back down shortly afterwards. > > > > > >6-FEB-1998 17:14:52.60: MX SMTP Server (pid 00000504) starting > >6-FEB-1998 17:16:19.63: MX SMTP Server (pid 00000504) exiting, > >status = 10248074 > > > > $ write sys$output f$message(%x0248074) > %STR-F-STRTOOLON, string is too long (greater than 65535) > $ > > This is fixed in the SMTP_SERVER.ALPHA_EXE available on > ftp.madgoat.com in [.MX.MX042.PATCH]. The problem is a message coming > > in with a To: or CC: header longer than 64K bytes (a SPAM message). > > Hunter, Thank you for so quickly responding to my problem. I downloaded the patch for the smtp server and it started working as normal. At times like this one can appreciate paying for a small yearly maintenance charge when the those responsible for this service respond as quickly as the MX guys do. Thank, Chance Eppinette ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 14:06:50 -0600 Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 15:06:44 EST From: Brian Reed Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C1762.7755C219.1@cbict3.cb.lucent.com> Subject: MX5.0 and rewrite rules I have a friend who upgraded to 5.0, and it seems some of the rewrite rules aren't working. The user name is coming out with quotes around it, and then it fails, saying "no such local user" (or a message like that). I've tried both of these: MCP> mod rewrite "" "<""sls""@simplelogic.com>" MCP> mod rewrite "" "" I've gotten one to work that is: Rewrite "" => "" Is there a secret to the quotes (the manuals show putting them around the username, but not sure why)? He says everything worked fine before (MX 4.1 or 4.2). Is there a change, or bug, or an oversight? Thanks. Brian D. Reed Lucent Technologies Columbus Works bdreed1@lucent.com 614-860-6218 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 19:53:41 -0600 Sender: madison@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 17:55:47 -0800 From: Matt Madison Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: reed@cbict3.cb.lucent.com Message-ID: <009C177A.14E6BEB8.1@Praetorius.MadGoat.COM> Subject: RE: MX5.0 and rewrite rules >I have a friend who upgraded to 5.0, and it seems some >of the rewrite rules aren't working. The user name >is coming out with quotes around it, and then it >fails, saying "no such local user" (or a message like that). > >I've tried both of these: > >MCP> mod rewrite "" "<""sls""@simplelogic.com>" >MCP> mod rewrite "" "" The second one should have worked fine, although if simplelogic.com is the local domain, then using simple aliases rather than rewrite rules might be easier. >I've gotten one to work that is: > > Rewrite "" => "" > >Is there a secret to the quotes (the manuals show putting >them around the username, but not sure why)? No secret to the quotes. >He says everything worked fine before (MX 4.1 or 4.2). >Is there a change, or bug, or an oversight? If these are new rewrite rules, just added to the configuration, then what your friend is seeing may be the result of a change to the SMTP server in V5.0 -- it now validates recipient addresses, rather than just passing them along to the Router. The upshot of this change is that if you change rewrite rules, or aliases in your MX configuration, you need to reset both the Router _and_ the SMTP server after you save out the new configuration. If that isn't the source of the problem, let me know, and try and send along specifics of the configuration and the actual bounce message received. Thanks, -Matt -- Matthew Madison | MadGoat Software | PO Box 556, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 USA madison@madgoat.com http://www.madgoat.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 19:56:40 -0800 Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 22:53:42 EST From: Robert Byer Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C186C.DDCD0D80.23@mail.all-net.net> Subject: Looking For David Cathy's anti-spam program... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've searched the list archives and most of the various FTP sites and I can't seem to find where to obtain David Cathey's anti-spam program that works with MX v4.2. Can anyone tell me were to find this thing? +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Robert Alan Byer | A-Com Computing, Inc. | | Vice-President | 115 W. Washington Street, Suite 1165 | | A-Com Computing, Inc. | Indianapolis, IN 46204 | | Phone: (317)673-4204 | http://www.all-net.net/ | +------------------------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | byer@mail.all-net.net | I don't want to take over the world, | | http://www.all-net.net/~byer | just my own little part of it. | +------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Send an E-mail request to obtain my PGP key. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNN427aVSqzlBVJbBAQGHygf/acTFj6vEfeDsBl+DTAuHZJE18Mebfwyd sNJvwbqe5mlBF5Hj+X+X0Nf738M/1Ud2gOTe2Sqz6VwKDAb1S7KDDN9wBJHBTD9m nwxaluB1RHhboDQKSR6zUqZTmXdGi6Aug8gGW8jOCuA0bVpEN9+KhvN5TCUKSStL B/eSfXafe7gUZ/Vgg4cn7+Nx5M31bT8TmtkR6G68t/TlrZPG4hbfn8q5N9qBrHfY taeks12ip8GA9RlAkwGUwpezK8glxbmdiD+LKUZOrwEkER17hrwXKycFL0TjBBjY JM6HoKw27eJ92ESnE6qDkARqueeay/+vtEpZ6ss2mRFU8c7/5HuYoQ== =68X6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:17:51 -0800 From: eplan@kapsch.co.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER) Subject: Re: Trying to make my MX server also answer another "address" Date: 8 Feb 98 14:07:24 GMT Message-ID: <34ddbc1c.0@nevada.kapsch.co.at> Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <6bfdp9$kjk$1@ipgat2.hartford.edu>, SYSTEM@UHAVAX.HARTFORD.EDU (SYSTEM MANAGER) writes: >Hi all - > >My MX 4.2 software is running on a computer which is also everyone's e-mail >address, for example: > > the server is: uhavax.hartford.edu > and everybody's e-mail address is: username@uhavax.hartford.edu > >I would like people to ALSO be able to use username@MAIL.hartford.edu No problem. >I have tried adding a CNAME ("mail") for uhavax.hartford.edu. When I do this, >messages get bounced with "Received too many times by this host" as follows: >[snip] >I've also tried creating an MX record for "mail" pointing to "uhavax". (I am >not well versed in DNS HOSTS files on Unix.) > >Any ideas how to get this working? You have to tell MX, that "MAIL.hartford.edu" is "LOCAL", too. $ MCP MCP>DEFINE PATH "MAIL.hartford.edu" LOCAL MCP>SAVE MCP>SHOW ALL/COM/OUT=MX_DIR:CONFIG.MCP MCP>RESET/CLUSTER MCP>QUIT HIH ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER Tel. +43 1 81111-2382 Network and OpenVMS system manager Fax. +43 1 81111-888 Technical Computer Center (ADV) E-mail eplan@kapsch.net <<< KAPSCH AG Wagenseilgasse 1 PSImail PSI%(0232)281001141::EPLAN A-1121 VIENNA AUSTRIA "I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:17:57 -0800 From: noone@nowhere.com Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: CHECK OUT THIS FREE XXX SITE I FOUND!! iTS GREAT!!!!!!! Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 19:32:06 Message-ID: <6blj4h$5tn@examiner.concentric.net> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Check out this site I found!!! http://www.concentric.com/~eggii2 This message was posted using E-Mail Magnet The World's Leading Bulk E-Mail Software Get our FREE news posting software, TV Broadcaster / News Blaster(tm), at: http://www.emailmagnet.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 22:08:19 -0800 Sender: rharwood@Basix.COM Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 23:05:49 MST From: Ray Harwood -- Data Basix Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: rharwood@Basix.COM Message-ID: <009C186E.8F5791C8.3@Basix.COM> Subject: Re: CHECK OUT THIS... > From: noone@nowhere.com > Subject: CHECK OUT THIS FREE XXX SITE I FOUND!! iTS GREAT!!!!!!! > Message-ID: <6blj4h$5tn@examiner.concentric.net> > To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU > This message was posted using E-Mail Magnet > The World's Leading Bulk E-Mail Software > Get our FREE news posting software, TV Broadcaster / News Blaster(tm), at: > http://www.emailmagnet.com Sorry... couldn't help myself from asking: Are you guys running MX 5.0 with Anti-Spam enabled? Ray ----- Ray Harwood | Data Basix | Voice: (520)885-1512 | PO Box 18324 | FAX: (520)721-7240 | Tucson, AZ 85731 | RHarwood@Basix.COM | http://Basix.COM/ | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 22:33:42 -0800 Sender: madison@MadGoat.Com Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 22:33:38 -0800 From: Matt Madison Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C186A.107A503D.1@MadGoat.Com> Subject: Re: CHECK OUT THIS... >> From: noone@nowhere.com >> Subject: CHECK OUT THIS FREE XXX SITE I FOUND!! iTS GREAT!!!!!!! >> Message-ID: <6blj4h$5tn@examiner.concentric.net> >> To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU >> This message was posted using E-Mail Magnet >> The World's Leading Bulk E-Mail Software >> Get our FREE news posting software, TV Broadcaster / News Blaster(tm), at: >> http://www.emailmagnet.com > >Sorry... couldn't help myself from asking: > >Are you guys running MX 5.0 with Anti-Spam enabled? This is what I get for opening up posting from Usenet too soon. :-( I'm in the process of moving our list processing over to a new system that doesn't have a fully-populated database yet. Sorry about that. I'll reconfigure the list back to subscribers-only until I've got all the anti-spam stuff fully in place. -Matt -- Matthew Madison | MadGoat Software | PO Box 556, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 USA madison@madgoat.com http://www.madgoat.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 23:11:28 -0800 Message-ID: <34DEA820.AACE3662@DeltaTel.RU> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 09:54:24 +0300 From: "Ruslan R. Laishev" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: Looking For David Cathy's anti-spam program... References: <009C186C.DDCD0D80.23@mail.all-net.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Byer wrote: > > > ---------- > > From: Robert Byer[SMTP:BYER@CARL.ALL-NET.NET] > > Sent: Monday, February 09, 1998 6:53:42 AM > > To: MX-List@MadGoat.com > > Subject: Looking For David Cathy's anti-spam program... > > Auto forwarded by a Rule > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > I've searched the list archives and most of the various FTP sites > and I can't seem to find where to obtain David Cathey's anti-spam > program that works with MX v4.2. > > Can anyone tell me were to find this thing? Check out ftp.montagar.com > > +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ > | Robert Alan Byer | A-Com Computing, Inc. | > | Vice-President | 115 W. Washington Street, Suite 1165 | > | A-Com Computing, Inc. | Indianapolis, IN 46204 | > | Phone: (317)673-4204 | http://www.all-net.net/ | > +------------------------+-----+--------------------------------------+ > | byer@mail.all-net.net | I don't want to take over the world, | > | http://www.all-net.net/~byer | just my own little part of it. | > +------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ > | Send an E-mail request to obtain my PGP key. | > +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.2 > > iQEVAwUBNN427aVSqzlBVJbBAQGHygf/acTFj6vEfeDsBl+DTAuHZJE18Mebfwyd > sNJvwbqe5mlBF5Hj+X+X0Nf738M/1Ud2gOTe2Sqz6VwKDAb1S7KDDN9wBJHBTD9m > nwxaluB1RHhboDQKSR6zUqZTmXdGi6Aug8gGW8jOCuA0bVpEN9+KhvN5TCUKSStL > B/eSfXafe7gUZ/Vgg4cn7+Nx5M31bT8TmtkR6G68t/TlrZPG4hbfn8q5N9qBrHfY > taeks12ip8GA9RlAkwGUwpezK8glxbmdiD+LKUZOrwEkER17hrwXKycFL0TjBBjY > JM6HoKw27eJ92ESnE6qDkARqueeay/+vtEpZ6ss2mRFU8c7/5HuYoQ== > =68X6 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sincerely yours... +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ Delta Telecom JSC Cel: 7+ (812) 116-3222 191119,Russia, St.Petersburg, Fax: 7+ (812) 112-1099 Transportny per. 3 Fido: 2:5030/279 RSA FingerPrint: D1C7 F4D1 9123 25A8 1C12 2F46 8A83 293A +http://www.levitte.org/~rlaishev/----------- SysMan riding Griphon + ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:24:34 -0800 Sender: henrym@CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:22:01 -0800 From: "Henry W. Miller" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: henrym@SACTO.MP.USBR.GOV Message-ID: <009C189A.BB465F1D.8@CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV> Subject: Re: CHECK OUT THIS... > From: MX%"MX-List@MadGoat.com" 8-FEB-1998 22:07:41.13 > To: MX%"MX-List@MadGoat.com" > CC: MX%"rharwood@Basix.COM" > Subj: Re: CHECK OUT THIS... > On Sun, 08 Feb 1998 23:05:49 MST, Ray Harwood -- Data Basix said: Ray Harwood -- Data Basix writes: > > From: noone@nowhere.com > > Subject: CHECK OUT THIS FREE XXX SITE I FOUND!! iTS GREAT!!!!!!! > > Message-ID: <6blj4h$5tn@examiner.concentric.net> > > To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU > > This message was posted using E-Mail Magnet > > The World's Leading Bulk E-Mail Software > > Get our FREE news posting software, TV Broadcaster / News Blaster(tm), at: > > http://www.emailmagnet.com > > Sorry... couldn't help myself from asking: > > Are you guys running MX 5.0 with Anti-Spam enabled? > > Ray > ----- > Ray Harwood | Data Basix | > Voice: (520)885-1512 | PO Box 18324 | > FAX: (520)721-7240 | Tucson, AZ 85731 | > RHarwood@Basix.COM | http://Basix.COM/ | I would venture to guess that they are - I have had people subscribe to mailing lists for the express purpose of spamming it. -HWM ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 13:25:41 -0800 Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 16:20:02 EST From: Robert Byer Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C18FF.096678E0.8@mail.all-net.net> Subject: Re: Looking For David Cathy's anti-spam program... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >> I've searched the list archives and most of the various FTP sites >> and I can't seem to find where to obtain David Cathey's anti-spam >> program that works with MX v4.2. >> >> Can anyone tell me were to find this thing? > >Check out ftp.montagar.com > >Sincerely yours... >+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ >Delta Telecom JSC Cel: 7+ (812) 116-3222 >191119,Russia, St.Petersburg, Fax: 7+ (812) 112-1099 >Transportny per. 3 Fido: 2:5030/279 >RSA FingerPrint: D1C7 F4D1 9123 25A8 1C12 2F46 8A83 293A >+http://www.levitte.org/~rlaishev/----------- SysMan riding Griphon + > Well... I searched the entire site and didn't find a sign of it (found some other things I was looking for though). Anyone else have an idea where this is at? +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Robert Alan Byer | A-Com Computing, Inc. | | Vice-President | 115 W. Washington Street, Suite 1165 | | A-Com Computing, Inc. | Indianapolis, IN 46204 | | Phone: (317)673-4204 | http://www.all-net.net/ | +------------------------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | byer@mail.all-net.net | I don't want to take over the world, | | http://www.all-net.net/~byer | just my own little part of it. | +------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Send an E-mail request to obtain my PGP key. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNN8sJaVSqzlBVJbBAQHTLAf/eA41kdheinxBwddL7a0bYFLazz3dNd76 V9FEC5FcSZWAXuZQAVaiCXOcyCRcosyPcttqaQ1hxtAiNCPfJST25wlptVzbgG7p sn17wOAvgif/mBf/gQknOs8pdwnewUD/pRMa0BVdqiD3+/4QdADIPXqV//Wz8RuX +yLOUE8T7h3jXW1fZSIAnJ3lhT3hoevgfI8Fb8ejEETV/7EWrW1PmsMHPFyjlM3s xjAhY5pgW5WYF6hvd+Q36BCiwFpvt9f90OUAQisU+9ttNYJW2M70uzlGkYrst2AS VB7D+Re3msciJ794HfeoCeTeCMdspUEDqc1l5yIaVB0xW3LamXwqDA== =FKWk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 14:56:09 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 14:53:39 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980209145339.20204d8e@Cisco.COM> Subject: Re: Looking For David Cathy's anti-spam program... >Anyone else have an idea where this is at? Ask David at davidc@montagar.com -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 01:53:45 -0800 Message-ID: <34E0160C.5706@grenoble.sema.fr> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:55:40 +0100 From: Hubert PERES Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mx-list@madgoat.com Subject: Retries in MX 5.0 : bad polling ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It seems that in MX 5.0, the SMTP process spends its time to process mails which are blocked because the target machine is in time-out. So "normal" mail which could be processed and sent, are not processed. Here is the case for two processes SMTP : they process 18 and 744, then 744 and 18, then ...., and other mails are not processed !! MCP> stat PID Process name Status Agent type -------- --------------- ------------------ ----------- 00000227 MX Router Idle Router agent 00000229 MX Local Idle Local delivery agent 00000230 MX MLF Idle Mailing list/file server 0000022A MX SMTP Waiting for # 18 SMTP delivery agent 0000022C MX SMTP#2 Waiting for # 744 SMTP delivery agent 0000022D MX SMTP Server Connected 1 SMTP server (over TCP/IP) 0000022F MX DNSMTP Idle SMTP-over-DECnet deliv. agent 00000226 MX FLQ Manager Idle MX FLQ manager A few seconds after : MCP> stat PID Process name Status Agent type -------- --------------- ------------------ ----------- 00000227 MX Router Idle Router agent 00000229 MX Local Idle Local delivery agent 00000230 MX MLF Idle Mailing list/file server 0000022A MX SMTP Waiting for # 744 SMTP delivery agent 0000022C MX SMTP#2 Waiting for # 18 SMTP delivery agent 0000022D MX SMTP Server Idle SMTP server (over TCP/IP) 0000022F MX DNSMTP Idle SMTP-over-DECnet deliv. agent 00000226 MX FLQ Manager Idle MX FLQ manager MCP> MCP> que sh/fu 18 Entry: 17, Origin: [SMTP] Status: IN-PROGRESS, size: 241 bytes Created: 10-FEB-1998 09:27:57.68, expires 12-MAR-1998 09:27:57.68 Last modified 10-FEB-1998 09:27:59.93 SMTP entry #18, status: READY, size: 160 bytes, waiting for retry until 10-FEB -1998 10:28:01.22 Created: 10-FEB-1998 09:27:59.10, expires 12-MAR-1998 09:27:57.68 Last modified 10-FEB-1998 09:28:01.22 Recipient #1: , Route=xx@here Error count=1 Last error: %MX-W-HOSTLOCK, target host is temporarily locked against connection attempts Recipient #2: , Route=xx@here Error count=1 Last error: %MX-W-HOSTLOCK, target host is temporarily locked against connection attempts And all other mails are waiting .... -- "Fast, Cheap, Secure. Pick two." Hubert PERES, Sema Group Centre de Grenoble (33) 4 76 41 47 23 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:31:34 -0800 Sender: madison@MadGoat.Com Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:31:26 -0800 From: Matt Madison Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C195C.D4B734C8.17@MadGoat.Com> Subject: RE: Retries in MX 5.0 : bad polling ? >It seems that in MX 5.0, the SMTP process spends its time to process >mails which are blocked because the target machine is in time-out. >So "normal" mail which could be processed and sent, are not processed. Are you positive about that? Do you have SMTP accounting turned on? If so, check the accounting log. The change in the "Waiting..." status every few seconds would indicate to me that the SMTP agents are processing other messages (probably pretty quickly), then returning to the waiting state for the messages bound for the currently locked hosts. -Matt -- Matthew Madison | MadGoat Software | PO Box 556, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 USA madison@madgoat.com http://www.madgoat.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:46:46 -0800 Message-ID: <34E05936.31D@grenoble.sema.fr> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:42:14 +0100 From: Hubert PERES Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: Retries in MX 5.0 : bad polling ? References: <009C195C.D4B734C8.17@MadGoat.Com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Matt Madison wrote: > > >It seems that in MX 5.0, the SMTP process spends its time to process > >mails which are blocked because the target machine is in time-out. > >So "normal" mail which could be processed and sent, are not processed. > > Are you positive about that? Do you have SMTP accounting turned on? > If so, check the accounting log. The change in the "Waiting..." status > every few seconds would indicate to me that the SMTP agents are processing > other messages (probably pretty quickly), then returning to the waiting > state for the messages bound for the currently locked hosts. > > -Matt This happened after a reboot. It seems it got some trouble establishing an SMTP connection with targets machines. DecnetSmtp was fine (mail going out over decnet). UCX was fine, and also "telnet host 25" Then at some moment (?) SMTP mails got processed. So I had just to make "mcp queue ready" for each mail in "waiting..." state, and now it's all right. Conclusion : - something got wrong just after the boot process, maybe the processing of mails already in queue ; - "MCP queue ready * " would be fine ; - it's work pretty well now ; - I send my order form ... -- "Fast, Cheap, Secure. Pick two." Hubert PERES, Sema Group Centre de Grenoble (33) 4 76 41 47 23 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 07:12:55 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:14:57 EST From: john@Argent-Software.com Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C1995.339C2704.3@Argent-Software.com> Subject: Re: Looking For David Cathy's anti-spam program... > >>Anyone else have an idea where this is at? > >Ask David at davidc@montagar.com Full info is at: http://www.whiteice.com John Vottero ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:00:34 -0800 Message-ID: <199802101557.PAA04412@muttley.cen.hw.ac.uk> To: MX-List@MadGoat.com From: D.J.Morriss@hw.ac.uk Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: MX5.0, SPAMFILTER and REJMAN MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:57:02 +0000 Sender: cendjm@ccen.hw.ac.uk Having recovered from the sting in the tail of the announcement on February 2nd, I have now installed MX5.0 (the cheque is in the post), and am very happy with it. I first did MCP SET SMTP /NORELAY_ALLOWED, then set up some test REJMAN rules. Then I found the SPAMFILTER stuff in MX_ROOT:[EXAMPLES] and installed it, and with some tweaks have found it to do pretty much all I want (this makes the OVMS system the only one on site so far which filters Spam on the basis of headers). There are a few things I'm not clear about with these new features: 1) Are failed relay attempts logged? I can't seem to see them in the accounting logs, nor in the debug files when I enable debugging. There doesn't seem to be an OPCOM message either. 2) Where does the FILTER stuff sit in relation to REJMAN? As far as I can see, filtering is done before the REJMAN code is invoked, because none of my REJMAN rules have been invoked since I enabled SPAMFILTER (the filter got 'em first, I assume). 3) Are FILTER or REJMAN rejections logged (other than OPCOM messages)? MX5.0 is looking very good, I must say. Thanks, Dave -- David Morriss, Computing Services, | Tel: +44 (0)131 451 3262 (DDI) Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, | FAX: +44 (0)131 451 3261 Scotland, UK | D.J.Morriss@hw.ac.uk ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:07:35 -0800 Sender: madison@MadGoat.Com Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:07:27 -0800 From: Matt Madison Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: D.J.Morriss@hw.ac.uk Message-ID: <009C198B.C5E15B0C.2@MadGoat.Com> Subject: RE: MX5.0, SPAMFILTER and REJMAN [...] >There are a few things I'm not clear about with these new features: > >1) Are failed relay attempts logged? I can't seem to see them in the > accounting logs, nor in the debug files when I enable debugging. There > doesn't seem to be an OPCOM message either. They are logged to OPCOM if you define the logical name: $ DEFINE/SYSTEM/EXEC MX_SMTP_REJECTION_EVENT_CLASS opcom-class-name $ MCP RESET SMTP_SERVER >2) Where does the FILTER stuff sit in relation to REJMAN? As far as I can > see, filtering is done before the REJMAN code is invoked, because none of > my REJMAN rules have been invoked since I enabled SPAMFILTER (the filter > got 'em first, I assume). The REJMAN rejection rules are handled by the SMTP server. The filter callouts that SPAMFILTER usees are in the Router. So REJMAN actually comes first. >3) Are FILTER or REJMAN rejections logged (other than OPCOM messages)? REJMAN rejections are logged via OPCOM using the same logical name mentioned above. SPAMFILTER drops are logged based on a different logical name, which I don't remember off the top of my head. Or you can direct SPAMFILTER to forward detected junk mail to a particular address for collection; it will prepend some headers describing why it identified each message as junk as it forwards them on. -Matt -- Matthew Madison | MadGoat Software | PO Box 556, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 USA madison@madgoat.com http://www.madgoat.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:40:36 -0800 Sender: root Message-ID: <34E0C6BD.465EEF6@earlham.edu> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:29:34 -0500 From: Noah Chanin Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mx-list@madgoat.com Subject: smtp server dying (understanding the log file) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, I was hoping someone might help me debug problems I've been having on my mail server. I am running mx4.2 and my (normally quite reliable) smtp server process has died about 50 times today. The log file says: 10-FEB-1998 16:07:01.54: MX SMTP Server (pid 20801938) starting 10-FEB-1998 16:16:39.40: MX SMTP Server (pid 20801938) exiting, status = 1000000C $ mess = f$message("1000000c") $ show sym mess MESS = "%NONAME-W-NOMSG, Message number 00000000" Could someone please decode this for me? Thanks very much, Noah Chanin ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:43:23 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:40:43 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980210134043.2020d020@Cisco.COM> Subject: RE: smtp server dying (understanding the log file) >10-FEB-1998 16:07:01.54: MX SMTP Server (pid 20801938) starting >10-FEB-1998 16:16:39.40: MX SMTP Server (pid 20801938) exiting, status >= 1000000C >$ mess = f$message("1000000c") >$ show sym mess > MESS = "%NONAME-W-NOMSG, Message number 00000000" > >Could someone please decode this for me? It's in hex, so you must use "%x" before the number. The quotes are unnecessary. $ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT F$MESSAGE(%X1000000C) %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=!XB, virtual address=!XH, PC=!XH, PS=!XL -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:06:25 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:03:47 CST From: Ravi Kochhar Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: mx-list@madgoat.com Message-ID: <009C19D6.B233D760.23@physiology.wisc.edu> Subject: RE: smtp server dying (understanding the log file) > >It's in hex, so you must use "%x" before the number. The quotes are >unnecessary. > > $ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT F$MESSAGE(%X1000000C) > %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=!XB, virtual address=!XH, PC=!XH, PS=!XL > >-Dan Wing > Interesting, when I try the same thing, I get: $ WRITE SYS$MESSAGE F$MESSAGE(%X1000000C) %DCL-W-UNDFIL, file has not been opened by DCL - check logical name (AXP VMS V6.2, but get same result with VAX VMS 5.5-2 also) Ravi Kochhar Univ. of Wisconsin ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:17:14 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:14:34 CST From: Ravi Kochhar Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C19D8.346C3780.9@physiology.wisc.edu> Subject: RE: smtp server dying (understanding the log file) Oops, a few minutes ago, I wrote: >> >> $ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT F$MESSAGE(%X1000000C) >> %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=!XB, virtual address=!XH, PC=!XH, PS=!XL >> >>-Dan Wing >> > Interesting, when I try the same thing, I get: > >$ WRITE SYS$MESSAGE F$MESSAGE(%X1000000C) >%DCL-W-UNDFIL, file has not been opened by DCL - check logical name > The answer is, of course, that I needed to use SYS$OUTPUT, not SYS$MESSAGE. Then I do get the same answer as Dan. Sorry for this confusion. ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:07:33 -0800 From: eplan@kapsch.co.at (Peter LANGSTOEGER) Subject: RE: smtp server dying (understanding the log file) Date: 11 Feb 98 00:27:26 GMT Message-ID: <34e0f06e.0@nevada.kapsch.co.at> Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU In article <009C19D6.B233D760.23@physiology.wisc.edu>, Ravi Kochhar writes: > Interesting, when I try the same thing, I get: > >$ WRITE SYS$MESSAGE F$MESSAGE(%X1000000C) >%DCL-W-UNDFIL, file has not been opened by DCL - check logical name Yes, SYS$MESSAGE has not been opened by DCL. Try SYS$OUTPUT (as Dan and all others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER Tel. +43 1 81111-2382 Network and OpenVMS system manager Fax. +43 1 81111-888 Technical Computer Center (ADV) E-mail eplan@kapsch.net <<< KAPSCH AG Wagenseilgasse 1 PSImail PSI%(0232)281001141::EPLAN A-1121 VIENNA AUSTRIA "I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:08:48 -0800 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:06:35 +0900 From: Koo Il-Woong Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <199802110206.LAA07007@icm.kyungpook.ac.kr> Content-Type: text unsubscribe ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:00:25 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:56:59 EST From: Brian Reed Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C19F7.4631F8CD.5@cbict3.cb.lucent.com> Subject: RE: smtp server dying (understanding the log file) >Hello, I was hoping someone might help me debug problems I've been >having on my mail server. > >I am running mx4.2 and my (normally quite reliable) smtp server process >has died about 50 times today. The log file says: Have you put in the patches for the SMTP server? Spam headers were causing crashed, but patches have come out to fix that. Brian D. Reed Lucent Technologies Columbus Works bdreed1@lucent.com 614-860-6218 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 23:20:53 -0800 Sender: root Message-ID: <34E14ED9.5A177A2F@earlham.edu> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 02:10:18 -0500 From: Noah Chanin Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mx-list@madgoat.com Subject: smtp server -> accvio Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Much thanks to those who set me in the right direction. Looks like another case of the problem described in I have included the log output in case this will be helpful for the authors. Looks like v5 came just in time so that I can now block that address that ails me. Thanks, Noah ------ 11-FEB-1998 01:52:14.01 STM[11]: Send "220 tian.earlham.edu MX V4.2 VAX SMTP ser ver ready at Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:52:14 EST" 11-FEB-1998 01:52:14.24 STM[11]: Receive "HELO pixem1.dts.edu" 11-FEB-1998 01:52:14.54 STM[11]: Send "250 Name lookup failed for pixem1.dts.edu " 11-FEB-1998 01:52:14.72 STM[11]: Receive "RSET" 11-FEB-1998 01:52:14.73 STM[11]: Send "250 Okay." 11-FEB-1998 01:52:14.93 STM[11]: Receive "MAIL FROM:" 11-FEB-1998 01:52:15.16 STM[11]: Send "250 MAIL command accepted." 11-FEB-1998 01:52:15.45 STM[11]: Receive "RCPT TO:" 11-FEB-1998 01:52:15.47 STM[11]: Send "250 Recipient okay (at least in form)" 11-FEB-1998 01:52:15.67 STM[11]: Receive "DATA" 11-FEB-1998 01:52:16.02 STM[11]: Send "354 Start mail input; end with ." 11-FEB-1998 01:52:16.16 STM[11]: Receive "Received: from [10.200.200.17] by with SMTP id AAA2969952659; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:50:59 " 11-FEB-1998 01:52:16.41 STM[11]: Receive "Date: Tue, 10 Feb 98 10:02:46 CDT" 11-FEB-1998 01:52:16.42 STM[11]: Receive "Message-Id: <0000CDF0.sm@dts.edu>" 11-FEB-1998 01:52:16.42 STM[11]: Receive "From: "List ATSRAO [DTS]" " 11-FEB-1998 01:52:16.43 STM[11]: Receive "To: 102547.646@compuserve.com, 71442.1 132@compuserve.com, 73514.760@compuserve.com, adjc@juno.com, alan_wolfinger@jun o.com, Contoveros.2@osu.edu, contoveros@aol.com, contoverosp@GEON.com, darlene sw@juno.com, dav ---------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 05:57:28 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 07:53:50 CST From: hunterl@uwwvax.uww.edu Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: mx-list@madgoat.com Message-ID: <009C1B13.D1C8B9EA.12@uwwvax.uww.edu> Subject: MX5.0 install problems Since I am aready to install MX5.0 and the check is in the mail, are there any problems that have discovered. In particular there was a message saying that the 30 day trial license did not work. True or false? ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 06:32:24 -0800 Sender: madison@MadGoat.Com Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 06:32:15 -0800 From: Matt Madison Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C1B08.6C308AC8.1@MadGoat.Com> Subject: RE: MX5.0 install problems >Since I am aready to install MX5.0 and the check is in the mail, >are there any problems that have discovered. In particular there was >a message saying that the 30 day trial license did not work. True or >false? No, that was cleared up. The only actual installation bug found so far was a failure that would occur if you were upgrading from a previous version of MX and you elected not to install the mailing list/file server support. That problem has been fixed in the latest kit on ftp.madgoat.com. You can check to see if you have the corrected kit by looking at the revision date of the file MX050.A in the MX050.ZIP file (using UNZIP -V or UNZIP/LIST); if it is dated 09-FEB-1998, you have the corrected version. The workarounds if you have the original MX050 kit are either to install from scratch rather than upgrade, or to make sure that you install mailing list support if you do upgrade. -Matt -- Matthew Madison | MadGoat Software | PO Box 556, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 USA madison@madgoat.com http://www.madgoat.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:33:30 -0800 Message-ID: <34E32353.6FD2@grenoble.sema.fr> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:29:07 +0100 From: Hubert PERES Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MX-list@madgoat.com Subject: the simplest address Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, I already sent this mail, but I had no success : I try again .. (and now I'm in MX 5.0) I would like, for more simplicity, to use addresses without the local domain name, for example it would be nice to use : => fred instead of => fred@my_domain In fact, if I use just "fred" as an address, fred gets a mail with an incorrect header ("Invalid TO: header") and the field CC: is left blank (nothing inside). So, instead of a rule like : Rewrite "<{user}@{host}.my_domain>" => "<{user}@my_domain>" I put a rule like this one : Rewrite "<{user}>" => "<{user}@my_domain>" after all other rules. But, no change : the receiver gets "Invalid TO: header" whih is not nice. What can I do ? Thanks, -- "Fast, Cheap, Secure. Pick two." Hubert PERES, Sema Group Centre de Grenoble (33) 4 76 41 47 23 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:08:29 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:05:50 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980212100550.20225449@Cisco.COM> Subject: RE: the simplest address >Hello, >I already sent this mail, but I had no success : I try again .. >(and now I'm in MX 5.0) > >I would like, for more simplicity, to use addresses without the local >domain >name, for example it would be nice to use : > => fred >instead of > => fred@my_domain > >In fact, if I use just "fred" as an address, fred gets a mail >with an incorrect header ("Invalid TO: header") and the field CC: is >left blank (nothing inside). > >So, instead of a rule like : >Rewrite "<{user}@{host}.my_domain>" => "<{user}@my_domain>" > >I put a rule like this one : >Rewrite "<{user}>" => "<{user}@my_domain>" >after all other rules. > >But, no change : the receiver gets "Invalid TO: header" whih is not >nice. >What can I do ? The rewrite rules only modify the envelope (the RCPT TO), not the internal RFC822 headers. What are you using to send your messages? VMSmail, or a mail client such as Eudora, Netscape, or IE? When I use VMSmail and send a message to MX%DWING, it is fully qualified in the RFC822 headers as dwing@cisco.com -- MX V5 automatically uses the MX_TO_HOST logical to add the full domain name. -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:21:59 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 13:17:58 -0500 From: "Brian Tillman, x8425" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C1B41.19DB77E0.5@swdev.si.com> Subject: RE: the simplest address >I would like, for more simplicity, to use addresses without the local >domain >name, for example it would be nice to use : > => fred >instead of > => fred@my_domain $ define fred "mx%""fred@my_domain""" $ mail/subject="Here's some mail" somefile.txt fred -- Brian Tillman Internet: tillman_brian at si.com Smiths Industries, Inc. tillman at swdev.si.com 4141 Eastern Ave., MS239 Addresses modified to prevent Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 SPAM. Replace "at" with "@" This opinion doesn't represent that of my company ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:27:32 -0800 Message-ID: <34E410DD.75C8@grenoble.sema.fr> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:22:37 +0100 From: Hubert PERES Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: the simplest address References: <980212100550.20225449@Cisco.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dan Wing wrote: > > >Hello, > >I already sent this mail, but I had no success : I try again .. > >(and now I'm in MX 5.0) > > > >I would like, for more simplicity, to use addresses without the local > >domain > >name, for example it would be nice to use : > > => fred > >instead of > > => fred@my_domain > > > >In fact, if I use just "fred" as an address, fred gets a mail > >with an incorrect header ("Invalid TO: header") and the field CC: is > >left blank (nothing inside). > > > >So, instead of a rule like : > >Rewrite "<{user}@{host}.my_domain>" => "<{user}@my_domain>" > > > >I put a rule like this one : > >Rewrite "<{user}>" => "<{user}@my_domain>" > >after all other rules. > > > >But, no change : the receiver gets "Invalid TO: header" whih is not > >nice. > >What can I do ? > > The rewrite rules only modify the envelope (the RCPT TO), not the > internal RFC822 headers. > > What are you using to send your messages? VMSmail, or a mail client > such as Eudora, Netscape, or IE? > > When I use VMSmail and send a message to MX%DWING, it is fully > qualified in the RFC822 headers as dwing@cisco.com -- MX V5 > automatically uses the MX_TO_HOST logical to add the full domain > name. > > -Dan Wing It is OK with VMSmail. The problem is with Netscape and Eudora. I guess they don't complete {user} with the local domain name. So fred remains fred. On a PC, the local domain name is given : - in configuration panel panel/network/TCP-IP/DNS, - in Netscape/Options/Mail/identity/address and return address. -- Hubert PERES, Sema Group ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:04:06 -0800 Message-ID: <199802131042.LAA30525@tlunix.tls.mms.fr> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 11:59:38 +0100 To: Mx-List@madgoat.com From: Manu Pintor Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: MIME/Base64 encoded mails not decoded CC: mp@zephyr.tls.mms.fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hello there, Sorry if the question has already been asked here, in that case just tell me when and I should find the answer in the archives. I'm using MX 4.2 on VAX/VMS 7.0 and send/read my mails with Eudora (IUPOP3 V018-1 as POP server on the VAX). It happens that when I receive posts with a MIME/Base64 attached file, I find it encoded in the mail. When the sender uses UUencode and/or BinHex, the POP client decodes it on-line so I just click the icon to see the attached image for instance. (BTW, I'm still trying to see the image *in* the read mail windows...). The Eudora client does not seem to blame, since Netscape Mail does exactly the same ;o)))) and I found a web page : http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/helpdesk/Attach/RcvdUndecoded.html saying that if automatic Base64 decoding does not work but uudecode and/or BinHex do then "your server or Internet Service Provider probably has a problem (e.g., they don't support MIME), and there's not much you can do except badger the people who maintain the server to update their software." I think MX supports MIME. But I'd like to make sure MX is not responsible for modifying anything in the received mail so that Eudora could not decode it. This done, I could assume that the problem may come from (one of) the gateway(s) in the SMTP chain. Any clue ? TIA. Cdt, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Manuel PINTOR | Tel. : +33 (0)5 62 19 51 59 TDHS manager, VMS/UNIX system manager | Secr. : +33 (0)5 62 19 72 06 for Operations Telecom | FAX : +33 (0)5 62 19 73 32 Matra Marconi Space - Toulouse | E-mail : mp@zephyr.tls.mms.fr STERIA I&S | A1 : ZXTDHSTER001 @ A1 @ ETOILE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 06:28:21 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:25:32 EST From: "James T. Horn" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-LIST@MADGOAT.COM Message-ID: <009C1BE1.6A167CCD.806@SHSU.edu> Subject: SMTP Server Dies Our SMTP Server process has been aborting recently and was wondering if anyone could give me some information based on what is in the SMTP_SERVER.LOG file: %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=00000072, PC=80845C68, PS=0000001B %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows Image Name Module Name Routine Name Line Number rel PC abs PC 0 80845C68 80845C68 MX_SHR 0 00017578 000DD578 SMTP_SERVER SMTP_SERVER PROCESS_CMD 1419 00004798 00034798 SMTP_SERVER SMTP_SERVER SMTP_SERVER 430 00000804 00030804 0 F4444170 F4444170 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- James T. Horn Coordinator, VMS Systems Sam Houston State University Internet : horn@Shsu.edu http://www.shsu.edu/~horn/ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:56:58 -0800 From: stenns@vw.tci.uni-hannover.de Subject: Re: MIME/Base64 encoded mails not decoded Date: 13 Feb 1998 14:38:43 GMT Message-ID: <6c1ltj$11v$1@newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de> Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Manu Pintor wrote: >Hello there, >Sorry if the question has already been asked here, in that case just tell >me when and I should find the answer in the archives. >I'm using MX 4.2 on VAX/VMS 7.0 and send/read my mails with Eudora (IUPOP3 >V018-1 as POP server on the VAX). >It happens that when I receive posts with a MIME/Base64 attached file, I >find it encoded in the mail. When the sender uses UUencode and/or BinHex, >the POP client decodes it on-line so I just click the icon to see the >attached image for instance. (BTW, I'm still trying to see the image *in* >the read mail windows...). >The Eudora client does not seem to blame, since Netscape Mail does exactly >the same ;o)))) and I found a web page : >http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/helpdesk/Attach/RcvdUndecoded.html saying >that if automatic Base64 decoding does not work but uudecode and/or BinHex >do then "your server or Internet Service Provider probably has a problem >(e.g., they don't support MIME), and there's not much you can do except >badger the people who maintain the server to update their software." >I think MX supports MIME. But I'd like to make sure MX is not responsible >for modifying anything in the received mail so that Eudora could not decode >it. This done, I could assume that the problem may come from (one of) the >gateway(s) in the SMTP chain. >Any clue ? I think this has nothing to do with MX. The problem might be in IUPOP3 1.8, which needs to be configured for use with mime messages. Check the supplied readme.txt file. You might also consider to upgrade to IUPOP3 v2.0. Check http://www.tci.uni-hannover.de/extrakt/pop.html for this. Regards, Michael -- Michael Stenns Email: stenns@vw.tci.uni-hannover.de ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:12:04 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:09:20 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980213170920.20235063@Cisco.COM> Subject: Re: the simplest address >It is OK with VMSmail. >The problem is with Netscape and Eudora. I guess they don't complete >{user} with the local domain name. So fred remains fred. My Netscape 4.03 does it. I don't run Eudora, but I'm sure it does it as well. 17:04:59.74 nine-inch-nails.cisco.com.4415 > hq.cisco.com.smtp: P 79:370(291) ack 377 win 8384 (DF) 4500 014b 2594 4000 2006 553a ab47 440a E..K%.@. .U:.GD. ab47 4446 113f 0019 0f88 194a 2762 baa6 .GDF.?.....J'b.. 5018 20c0 89e1 0000 4d65 7373 6167 652d P. .....Message- 4944 3a20 3c33 3445 3445 4437 352e 4642 ID: <34E4ED75.FB 4339 3737 3237 4063 6973 636f 2e63 6f6d C97727@cisco.com 3e0d 0a44 6174 653a 2046 7269 2c20 3133 >..Date: Fri, 13 2046 6562 2031 3939 3820 3137 3a30 333a Feb 1998 17:03: 3439 202d 3038 3030 0d0a 4672 6f6d 3a20 49 -0800..From: 4461 6e20 5769 6e67 203c 6477 696e 6740 Dan Wing ..X-Ma 696c 6572 3a20 4d6f 7a69 6c6c 6120 342e iler: Mozilla 4. 3034 205b 656e 5d20 2857 696e 3935 3b20 04 [en] (Win95; 4929 0d0a 4d49 4d45 2d56 6572 7369 6f6e I)..MIME-Version 3a20 312e 300d 0a54 6f3a 2064 7769 6e67 : 1.0..To: dwing 4063 6973 636f 2e63 6f6d 0d0a 5375 626a @cisco.com..Subj 6563 743a 2065 6665 0d0a 436f 6e74 656e ect: efe..Conten 742d 5479 7065 3a20 7465 7874 2f70 6c61 t-Type: text/pla 696e 3b20 6368 6172 7365 743d 7573 2d61 in; charset=us-a 7363 6969 0d0a 436f 6e74 656e 742d 5472 scii..Content-Tr 616e 7366 6572 2d45 6e63 6f64 696e 673a ansfer-Encoding: 2037 6269 740d 0a0d 0a0d 0a 7bit...... In any event, you can setup an entry for fred in your address book in Eudora/Netscape/IE. >On a PC, the local domain name is given : >- in configuration panel panel/network/TCP-IP/DNS, >- in Netscape/Options/Mail/identity/address and return address. Bounce messages that don't have a domain name in the RCPT command; they probably don't have a domain name in the To: header, either. Not having domain names, or having 'shortened' names, is illegal on the Internet per RFC1123, section 5.2.2, 5.2.18. If your MX system sends it out like that, it is broken. You should prevent such addresses from being submitted to your system. -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:13:51 -0800 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 17:11:03 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980213171103.20235063@Cisco.COM> Subject: RE: MIME/Base64 encoded mails not decoded >I think MX supports MIME. But I'd like to make sure MX is not responsible >for modifying anything in the received mail so that Eudora could not decode >it. This done, I could assume that the problem may come from (one of) the >gateway(s) in the SMTP chain. MX does not support MIME. What are your LOCAL headers ("$ MCR MX_EXE:MCP SHOW LOCAL")? The MIME headers have to be at the top, _not_ the bottom, for MIME to work. -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 07:48:12 -0800 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 09:44:43 -1300 From: hunterl@uwwvax.uww.edu Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: mx-list@madgoat.com Message-ID: <009C1E47.F8D80A54.29@uwwvax.uww.edu> Subject: V5.0 question Installed V5.0 and am seeing many of the message below which were not that common in V4.2. Debug and accounting have given no clues. Any ideas as to the reason? 17 cancelled 0 SMTP "address" ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:38:05 -0800 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: V5.0 question Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 20:09:43 -0600 Message-ID: <34E89D07.69E8828@MadGoat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: MX-List@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU hunterl@uwwvax.uww.edu wrote: > > Installed V5.0 and am seeing many of the message below which were not > that common in V4.2. Debug and accounting have given no clues. > Any ideas as to the reason? > > 17 cancelled 0 SMTP "address" If I'm reading your question correctly, those are incoming SMTP connections that were dropped for one reason or another. They could be connections that timed out, or connections rejected according to spam rules you've set up. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, MadGoat Software http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 00:36:01 -0800 Message-ID: <199802170814.JAA16927@tlunix.tls.mms.fr> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:31:48 +0100 To: From: Manu Pintor Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: MIME/Base64 encoded mails not decoded In-Reply-To: <1998021414121391@zephyr.tls.mms.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thanks to Michael Stenns (stenns@vw.tci.uni-hannover.de) and Dan Wing (dwing@Cisco.COM) for their help. The problem was to be able to see inline Base64 encoded images with Eudora POP client. According to what Dan Wing said I set MX LOCAL agent to set all top headers on and I downloaded the latest IUPOP3 kit from where Micheal told me and set IGNORE_MAIL11_HEADER to TRUE (should have work with the previous IUPOP3 s/w too). And it seems to work fine now. :o) Thanks again Manu Pintor mp@zephyr.tls.mms.fr Toulouse - France ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 06:20:07 -0800 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:16:53 -1300 From: hunterl@uwwvax.uww.edu Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: mx-list@madgoat.com Message-ID: <009C1FCE.08548DCC.32@uwwvax.uww.edu> Subject: V5.0 mailqueue problem Below is the output from issuing the MAILQUEUE command on 5.0. Error does not always occur. $ mailque Entry: 12, Origin: [SMTP] Status: IN-PROGRESS SMTP entry #23, status: READY Waiting for retry until: 18-FEB-1998 08:14:38.05 Recipient #1: , Route=webtv.net Error count=4 Last error: %SYSTEM-F-REJECT, connect to network object rejected Entry: 25, Origin: [SMTP] Status: IN-PROGRESS Local entry #24, status: READY Waiting for retry until: 18-FEB-1998 08:17:25.71 %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=00000008, PC=00020E08, PS=0000001B Improperly handled condition, image exit forced. Signal arguments: Number = 00000005 Name = 0000000C 00000000 00000008 00020E08 0000001B Register dump: R0 = 000F9E94010E0009 R1 = 00000000010E0000 R2 = 0000000000010070 R3 = 000000007FB4EE98 R4 = 0000000000010368 R5 = 0000000000000001 R6 = 0000000000040000 R7 = 0000000000000001 R8 = 0000000000010504 R9 = 000000007F93F140 R10 = 0000000000000001 R11 = 0000000000000000 R12 = 0000000000000000 R13 = 000000007F9F6820 R14 = 0000000000000000 R15 = 0000000500000000 R16 = 000000007F93EF10 R17 = 0000000031333156 R18 = 000000007F93E944 R19 = 000F9E94010E0000 R20 = 0000000000000003 R21 = 000000007F93EF10 R22 = 00000000020E0000 R23 = 00000000020E001F R24 = 000000000000001F R25 = 0000000000000002 R26 = FFFFFFFF80480B30 R27 = 000000007FB50790 R28 = 45462D3831333156 R29 = 000000007F93EEE0 SP = 000000007F93EEE0 PC = 0000000000020E08 PS = 200000000000001B Lyle Hunter T & IR University Wisconsin-Whitewater 414-472-1967 Fax: 414-472-5733 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 06:28:56 -0800 Sender: henrym@CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 06:26:05 -0800 From: "Henry W. Miller" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: henrym@SACTO.MP.USBR.GOV Message-ID: <009C1FBE.8DD19603.1@CVOBKU.CVO.MP.USBR.GOV> Subject: RE: V5.0 mailqueue problem > From: MX%"MX-List@MadGoat.com" 18-FEB-1998 06:23:20.19 > To: MX%"mx-list@madgoat.com" > CC: > Subj: V5.0 mailqueue problem > On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:16:53 -1300, hunterl@uwwvax.uww.edu said: hunterl@uwwvax.uww.edu writes: > Below is the output from issuing the MAILQUEUE command on 5.0. > Error does not always occur. > > > $ mailque > > Entry: 12, Origin: [SMTP] > Status: IN-PROGRESS > SMTP entry #23, status: READY > Waiting for retry until: 18-FEB-1998 08:14:38.05 > Recipient #1: , Route=webtv.net > Error count=4 > Last error: %SYSTEM-F-REJECT, connect to network object rejected > > Entry: 25, Origin: [SMTP] > Status: IN-PROGRESS > Local entry #24, status: READY > Waiting for retry until: 18-FEB-1998 08:17:25.71 > > %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=00000008, PC=00020E08, PS=0000001B > > Improperly handled condition, image exit forced. > Signal arguments: Number = 00000005 > Name = 0000000C > 00000000 > 00000008 > 00020E08 > 0000001B > > Register dump: > R0 = 000F9E94010E0009 R1 = 00000000010E0000 R2 = 0000000000010070 > R3 = 000000007FB4EE98 R4 = 0000000000010368 R5 = 0000000000000001 > R6 = 0000000000040000 R7 = 0000000000000001 R8 = 0000000000010504 > R9 = 000000007F93F140 R10 = 0000000000000001 R11 = 0000000000000000 > R12 = 0000000000000000 R13 = 000000007F9F6820 R14 = 0000000000000000 > R15 = 0000000500000000 R16 = 000000007F93EF10 R17 = 0000000031333156 > R18 = 000000007F93E944 R19 = 000F9E94010E0000 R20 = 0000000000000003 > R21 = 000000007F93EF10 R22 = 00000000020E0000 R23 = 00000000020E001F > R24 = 000000000000001F R25 = 0000000000000002 R26 = FFFFFFFF80480B30 > R27 = 000000007FB50790 R28 = 45462D3831333156 R29 = 000000007F93EEE0 > SP = 000000007F93EEE0 PC = 0000000000020E08 PS = 200000000000001B > > Lyle Hunter > T & IR > University Wisconsin-Whitewater > 414-472-1967 > Fax: 414-472-5733 Lyle, Are you running the most recent version of 5.0 ? I know that I ran across this bug during one of the earlier beta loads. -HWM ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 06:53:07 -0800 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:50:12 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C1FD2.B04C15AF.3@goat.process.com> Subject: RE: V5.0 mailqueue problem "Henry W. Miller" writes: > >> Below is the output from issuing the MAILQUEUE command on 5.0. >> Error does not always occur. [...] > Are you running the most recent version of 5.0 ? I know that I >ran across this bug during one of the earlier beta loads. > Same bug, different image. I fixed a similar problem in MCP, but missed MAILQUEUE. An ECO kit for this will be released shortly. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:42:34 -0800 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 13:39:31 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C1FFB.1A987A9D.10@goat.process.com> Subject: MAILQUEUE ECO kit available A bug in the MX V5.0 MAILQUEUE was reported via MX-List this morning. When displaying an entry queued for local delivery retry, an access violation would occur. This problem has been corrected. You can pick up the following file to get new MAILQUEUE executables that can be placed in MX_EXE:. ftp://ftp.madgoat.com/mx/mx050/ecos/mx050_eco02.zip Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, MadGoat Software, http://www.madgoat.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 14:59:33 -0800 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:51:52 -0600 (MDT) From: David Richardson Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Requesting some fundamental advice To: MX-LIST@madgoat.com Message-ID: <01ITQBCIIKSY0039T5@AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi, All. I'm seeking some advice about a situation we have with E-mail. We have staff on 22 campuses, and a WAN which reaches only 5 campuses. Our WAN has VMS servers, and we are in the process of deploying MX to address internet addresses and store and forward difficulties along with a single mailserver. Staff on outlying campuses are using accounts with an ISP, and thus have different addresses. They are currently using Windows 95 stand alone machines to connect to the ISP. So: "first.last@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca" maps to either a VMS account somewhere on our WAN, or is forwarded back to the internet to "username@isp.net" AVC Lesser Slave Lake (GRDA.) and AVC Calgary (avc.calgary.ab.ca) are sister organizations, having separate boards of governors. A DECNET X.25 network connects us, AVC Calgary runs a PMDF gateway, which we benefit from, so I'm not concerned with being used to SPAM (yet;-). Issues involving the PMDF-MX transfers are leaving us with Un-replyable addresses, and we are working with AVC Calgary's PMDF maintainer to correct these. [Which is why we've not finished deploying in production]. Long range plans involve putting NT systems on each campus, and either through an expanded WAN or VPN through a [perhaps multiple] ISP(s) or both, incorporating them into our internal E-mail domain. A name change for us is probable, as is its accompanying domain name change. First, is it possible to set up rewriting so that the E-mail which is forwarded to the username@isp.net has its from addresses re-written so that when my user replys, the message comes back for rewriting to maintain the fiction of first.last@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca? I.e. that someone who sends to the internal address doesn't see the ISP address when my staff member replies. Second, is it possible to set up rewriting (or something else) so that staff from the outlying campuses can initiate E-mail with someone such that the addresses the reciepient sees are the internal first.last@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca format only? Thirdly, is it possible to do both of the above, so that ONLY my staff addresses can do this, NOT THE !@#$%^&*() spammers. [see, I do care;-)] I think we want to do this to give "Official electronic communications" an official address, and to be able to preserve a specific address so that as we include them internally and their ISP addresses go away their communications aren't disrupted. In essence we know things are going to change, probably several times, and wish to minimize the disruptions to staff. Without direct internet connection at this time, the obvious soloution of setting up an internet mail server, and using it in preference to the ISP's server doesn't seem possible. (No security policies, no firewall, internal Lan and WAN re-organizations, etc have to be dealt with first). Are there any potentential problems I'm overlooking? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Richardson (403) 751-3278 | My Personal opinions Network Analyst Fax (403) 751-3375 | only. Alberta Vocational College Lesser Slave Lake. | David.Richardson@GRDA.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:38:58 -0800 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:36:06 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980218153606.2026fe81@Cisco.COM> Subject: RE: Requesting some fundamental advice >First, is it possible to set up rewriting so that the E-mail which is forwarded >to the username@isp.net has its from addresses re-written so that when my user >replys, the message comes back for rewriting to maintain the fiction of >first.last@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca? I.e. that someone who sends to the internal >address doesn't see the ISP address when my staff member replies. Yes. See Louis Moore's program in MX_CONTRIB. I forgot what it is called, but it is written in Macro and does bi-directional mapping between internal "ugly" usernames and external "pretty" (First.Last) usernames. >Second, is it possible to set up rewriting (or something else) so that staff >from the outlying campuses can initiate E-mail with someone such that the >addresses the reciepient sees are the internal >first.last@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca format only? Yes, Louis' code does this both directions. >Thirdly, is it possible to do both of the above, so that ONLY my staff >addresses can do this, NOT THE !@#$%^&*() spammers. [see, I do care;-)] I don't quite understand that question. >I think we want to do this to give "Official electronic communications" an >official address, and to be able to preserve a specific address so that as we >include them internally and their ISP addresses go away their communications >aren't disrupted. In essence we know things are going to change, probably >several times, and wish to minimize the disruptions to staff. That's an excellent plan - one that too many MIS departments never consider. >Without direct internet connection at this time, the obvious soloution of >setting up an internet mail server, and using it in preference to the ISP's >server doesn't seem possible. (No security policies, no firewall, internal Lan >and WAN re-organizations, etc have to be dealt with first). You could have an ISP, or the site running PMDF, hold your mail and you could use UUCP to fetch it every NN minutes. Works okay and you can do it with an old modem. The only problem is finding an ISP that wants to bother setting up UUCP now-a-days. >Are there any potentential problems I'm overlooking? It sounds like you've got much of the difficult problems covered. -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 15:40:55 -0800 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 17:37:59 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C201C.6B065056.3@goat.process.com> Subject: RE: Requesting some fundamental advice Dan Wing writes: > >Yes. See Louis Moore's program in MX_CONTRIB. I forgot what it is >called, but it is written in Macro and does bi-directional mapping >between internal "ugly" usernames and external "pretty" (First.Last) >usernames. > The ADDRESS_REWRITER (see ftp.madgoat.com in [.MX.EXAMPLES]) will also do that, including handling system names, which Louis's program doesn't do. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 17:18:44 -0800 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 18:14:53 -0600 (MDT) From: David Richardson Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: Requesting some fundamental advice To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <01ITQF4OMYOY001R2Z@BARNEY.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT >I don't quite understand that question. > Let me see if I can expand on the situation: Assume that Joe.user@isp.net is one of my users. We maintain the address Joe.User@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca ([set forward calnod::in%"joe.user@isp.net" /user=joe.user] within VMSmail) [literally it requires a bunch more " characters, but you know what I mean] Lets say Dan.Wing@somewhere.org [I'm using fictional addresses here] wishes to communicate by E-mail with joe.user@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca. The initial message gets there as expected. However, if Joe.User sends a reply to this message, or if he wishes to initiate a communication with Dan.Wing, as things sit Dan gets the Username@ISP.NET address, not Joe.User@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca. Lets see if I can present a picture of the setup here. Dan.Wing@somewhere.org Internet -------------------------------------------------- | | | | | AVC Calgary ISP | | | DECNET X.25 private network | dialup line | | AVC LSL (Me) W95 system | Joe.User | | Future NT domains (Logically) We KNOW that the Joe.User@ISP.NET addresses are going to go away as they get incorporated into our WAN. We are pretty sure that GRDA.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA addresses will change because either we will get direct internet connectivity, or because of a probable name change to our organization or both. The ISP has local calling within ALL our sites (the whole province really) which is why we've selected them. The PVN would continue to go through them, and over private leased lines depending on costs. >You could have an ISP, or the site running PMDF, hold your mail and >you could use UUCP to fetch it every NN minutes. Works okay and you >can do it with an old modem. The only problem is finding an ISP that >wants to bother setting up UUCP now-a-days. > >>Are there any potentential problems I'm overlooking? > >It sounds like you've got much of the difficult problems covered. > >-Dan Wing Are you suggesting that we put a mail server at AVC Calgary, and have the users using it in preference to the ISP's addresses? What else would need to be done to make that work? (It might solve some other issues with one stone -- I'll have to think about it.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Richardson (403) 751-3278 | My Personal opinions Network Analyst Fax (403) 751-3375 | only. Alberta Vocational College Lesser Slave Lake. | David.Richardson@GRDA.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 17:58:27 -0800 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 17:55:33 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980218175533.2027672c@Cisco.COM> Subject: Re: Requesting some fundamental advice >>I don't quite understand that question. >> > >Let me see if I can expand on the situation: > >Assume that Joe.user@isp.net is one of my users. > >We maintain the address Joe.User@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca ([set forward >calnod::in%"joe.user@isp.net" /user=joe.user] within VMSmail) [literally it >requires a bunch more " characters, but you know what I mean] That type of forwarding is probably contributing to the non-replyable addresses you are having, by the way. If you remove "calnod" by putting MX on your own host, the addresses will be more palatable. >Lets say Dan.Wing@somewhere.org [I'm using fictional addresses here] wishes to >communicate by E-mail with joe.user@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca. The initial >message gets there as expected. > >However, if Joe.User sends a reply to this message, or if he wishes to initiate >a communication with Dan.Wing, as things sit Dan gets the Username@ISP.NET >address, not Joe.User@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca. [...] Why can't joe.use@isp.net set their name to Joe.User@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca within their mailer. All mailers let you do this. The only problem might be their ISP which isn't happy with what appears to them as spam, but if you explain why you want to do this, they may open up their mailers to allow such MAIL FROM addresses from your users. If not, find another ISP. Or you could, I'm sure, find some kind soul on this mailing list who will relay such mail for you for a few months. There can't be that much. >We KNOW that the Joe.User@ISP.NET addresses are going to go away as they get >incorporated into our WAN. We are pretty sure that GRDA.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA >addresses will change because either we will get direct internet connectivity, >or because of a probable name change to our organization or both. Hm, okay. It sounds like you should get your own domain name now and start using it to prevent disruption if you expect a change in your organization's name or suspect that getting real Internet connectivity will change your From: addresses. >The ISP has local calling within ALL our sites (the whole province really) >which is why we've selected them. The PVN would continue to go through them, >and over private leased lines depending on costs. Okay. >>You could have an ISP, or the site running PMDF, hold your mail and >>you could use UUCP to fetch it every NN minutes. Works okay and you >>can do it with an old modem. The only problem is finding an ISP that >>wants to bother setting up UUCP now-a-days. >> >>>Are there any potentential problems I'm overlooking? >> >>It sounds like you've got much of the difficult problems covered. >> >>-Dan Wing > >Are you suggesting that we put a mail server at AVC Calgary, and have the >users using it in preference to the ISP's addresses? Sure, why not? >What else would need to be done to make that work? (It might solve some other >issues with one stone -- I'll have to think about it.) The only problem I can think of is your ISP might block outgoing mail to port 25 to anything _but_ their mailservers. Some ISPs do this to prevent their users from using mail relays on the Internet to send spam. You should be able to get them to open a hole to your mailer at AVC Calgary, though. -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:39:33 -0800 Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980218223733.00a0ea10@dirmarketing.com> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:37:33 -0800 To: MX-List@MadGoat.com From: Stephen Garrett Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: 4.1 -> 5.0?? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I need to upgrade my mx 4.1 system and was wondering if I can go from 4.1 to 5.0 without changing or re-entering any of my configurations? Could I copy the 4.1 root to another directory, install 5.0 ontop of that copied root (so to preserver the 4.1 system)?? I also have a system with mx 4.2 on it. Is this upgrade any different than the previous question? Thanks! Steve -- Stephen Garrett GPS steve@gpsnet.com (360) 896-2714 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 05:44:42 -0800 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 08:40:28 -0500 From: "Brian Tillman, x8425" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C209A.7E270080.3@swdev.si.com> Subject: Re: Requesting some fundamental advice >However, if Joe.User sends a reply to this message, or if he wishes to initiate >a communication with Dan.Wing, as things sit Dan gets the Username@ISP.NET >address, not Joe.User@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca. Since the ISP user is on a W95 platform, they have complete control over what the From address looks like. Have them set their mailer up to present the correct address. Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but it seems simple to me. -- Brian Tillman Internet: tillman_brian at si.com Smiths Industries, Inc. tillman at swdev.si.com 4141 Eastern Ave., MS239 Addresses modified to prevent Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 SPAM. Replace "at" with "@" This opinion doesn't represent that of my company ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 05:45:43 -0800 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 07:42:45 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C2092.6E64D927.17@goat.process.com> Subject: RE: 4.1 -> 5.0?? Stephen Garrett writes: > >I need to upgrade my mx 4.1 system and was wondering if I can go from >4.1 to 5.0 without changing or re-entering any of my configurations? > Yes, you can. >Could I copy the 4.1 root to another directory, install 5.0 ontop of >that copied root (so to preserver the 4.1 system)?? > If you want to be really paranoid, you could do that. But it's not necessary. >I also have a system with mx 4.2 on it. Is this upgrade any different >than the previous question? > No. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 05:59:51 -0800 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 07:56:53 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C2094.67D3C3FA.1@goat.process.com> Subject: Re: Requesting some fundamental advice Dan Wing writes: > >>We maintain the address Joe.User@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca ([set forward >>calnod::in%"joe.user@isp.net" /user=joe.user] within VMSmail) [literally it >>requires a bunch more " characters, but you know what I mean] > >That type of forwarding is probably contributing to the non-replyable >addresses you are having, by the way. If you remove "calnod" by >putting MX on your own host, the addresses will be more palatable. > Yes. If I'm not mistaken, I made this same suggestion a while back via private e-mail. Does PMDF support SMTP-Over-DECnet? If so, you could run MX on your node and use SMTP-Over-DECnet to talk to CALNOD, if there was a reason you couldn't do normal SMTP. >>Are you suggesting that we put a mail server at AVC Calgary, and have the >>users using it in preference to the ISP's addresses? > >Sure, why not? > Exactly. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:49:09 -0800 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 10:42:56 -0600 (MDT) From: David Richardson Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: Requesting some fundamental advice To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <01ITRDGQ5C4Y0017RS@BARNEY.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT >>That type of forwarding is probably contributing to the non-replyable >>addresses you are having, by the way. If you remove "calnod" by >>putting MX on your own host, the addresses will be more palatable. Removing CALNOD:: Causes the problem! >> >Yes. If I'm not mistaken, I made this same suggestion a while back >via private e-mail. Does PMDF support SMTP-Over-DECnet? If so, you It is supposed to, but I don't have enough information to make it work. >could run MX on your node and use SMTP-Over-DECnet to talk to CALNOD, >if there was a reason you couldn't do normal SMTP. The routers on the X.25 net are decnet only at this time. You did, Hunter. I've perhaps oversimplified. AVC Calgary's PMDF is maintained by a person from SAIT (which is the next mail hop out -- Our IP connection is a leased line from AVC Calgary to SAIT, as I understand it, so we are actually sitting behind their firewall). Addresses comming in are the only ones affected by the forwarding. Outbound addresses via mail 11 are mynode::myusername as they depart my systems on their way to CALNOD::. PMDF "Knows" our list of valid VMS systems, and rewrites all addresses coming from them as username@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca. When I use MX locally, our outbound address looks like, for example, Richardson@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca. PMDF then rewrites them (if I remember corerectly) as Richardson!grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca@grda.avc.calgary.ab.ca. The address is replyable from SAIT, but ugly. Other mailers further down the line, including one between Hunter and I get confused and damage the address. The PMDF maintainter and I have diagnosed that the best solution (only solution without adding servers) is to modify the rewrite rules in PMDF so that they don't create the problem in the first place. His having the time to get this done is the hold up. >>>Are you suggesting that we put a mail server at AVC Calgary, and have the >>>users using it in preference to the ISP's addresses? >> >>Sure, why not? >> >Exactly. > >Hunter >------ >Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ > http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html > I'm also investigating if we can get a server into AVC Calgary to do this, and having MX route out through it directly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Richardson (403) 751-3278 | My Personal opinions Network Analyst Fax (403) 751-3375 | only. Alberta Vocational College Lesser Slave Lake. | David.Richardson@GRDA.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 07:14:01 -0800 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:10:58 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: RICHARDSON@GRDA.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA Message-ID: <009C2167.EB749530.2@goat.process.com> Subject: Re: Requesting some fundamental advice David Richardson writes: > >>>That type of forwarding is probably contributing to the non-replyable >>>addresses you are having, by the way. If you remove "calnod" by >>>putting MX on your own host, the addresses will be more palatable. > >Removing CALNOD:: Causes the problem! > No, what we mean is, run MX on your own system and use something (SMTP-Over-DECnet, UUCP) to get your files from MX to CALNOD, instead of using CALNOD:: in the forwarding address. >>Yes. If I'm not mistaken, I made this same suggestion a while back >>via private e-mail. Does PMDF support SMTP-Over-DECnet? If so, you > >It is supposed to, but I don't have enough information to make it work. > Any chance you could get them to run MX on CALNOD, in addition to PMDF? You could then set up MX on both, transfer via SMTP-Over-DECnet, and have MX on CALNOD delivery via SMTP. But that may be going too far.... >The PMDF maintainter and I have diagnosed that the best solution (only solution >without adding servers) is to modify the rewrite rules in PMDF so that they >don't create the problem in the first place. His having the time to get this >done is the hold up. > That's too bad. That is the right thing to do, short of you running MX and using SMTP-Over-DECnet somehow. >I'm also investigating if we can get a server into AVC Calgary to do this, and >having MX route out through it directly. > That would be the *best* thing. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:08:29 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:03:12 -0600 (MDT) From: David Richardson Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: Requesting some fundamental advice To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <01ITSUA7KLZM001UW0@BARNEY.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT >>Removing CALNOD:: Causes the problem! >> >No, what we mean is, run MX on your own system and use something >(SMTP-Over-DECnet, UUCP) to get your files from MX to CALNOD, instead >of using CALNOD:: in the forwarding address. I was wondering if I was missing something. The PMDS maintainer and I have discussed doing SMTP over decnet, but neither of us knows how to make them talk to each other. >Any chance you could get them to run MX on CALNOD, in addition to >PMDF? You could then set up MX on both, transfer via >SMTP-Over-DECnet, and have MX on CALNOD delivery via SMTP. But that >may be going too far.... >That's too bad. That is the right thing to do, short of you running >MX and using SMTP-Over-DECnet somehow. >>I'm also investigating if we can get a server into AVC Calgary to do this, and >>having MX route out through it directly. >> >That would be the *best* thing. Has anyone any experience in getting PMDF and MX talking to each other, either running on one machine, or SMTP over DECNET? I've heard that it is supposed to work, but I don't have enough information to make it work. Altering the users profiles on the W95 machines to use our "Internal" addresses in their from fields will work, I've been able to test it. Thanks Brian and Hunter for suggesting it. I wasn't aware that that possibility existed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Richardson (403) 751-3278 | My Personal opinions Network Analyst Fax (403) 751-3375 | only. Alberta Vocational College Lesser Slave Lake. | David.Richardson@GRDA.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:21:35 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:18:36 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980220111836.20277391@Cisco.COM> Subject: Re: Requesting some fundamental advice >I was wondering if I was missing something. The PMDS maintainer and I have >discussed doing SMTP over decnet, but neither of us knows how to make them talk >to each other. Here's another idea. It sounds like you have a DECnet-only network between you and the other site (no TCP/IP). Is that correct? How about setting up an IP-over-DECnet tunnel, which you can do with Cisco routers or with MultiNet on your VMS machines. This would allow you to connect directly to PMDF's SMTP port on the remote machine, without having to worry about configuring MX or PMDF -- instead you will configure the Cisco routers or MultiNet systems to do IP-over-DECnet. The advantage of this is it is a cleaner configuration for your mailers and it will give you access to the web and ftp sites from your network, and may mean you don't need to get a direct internet connection at all. I may have mis-remembered your network topology, and if so, just ignore my message. I didn't re-read your earlier message which described your network topology. -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:47:43 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:42:37 -0600 (MDT) From: David Richardson Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: Requesting some fundamental advice To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <01ITSZ0D96TU0018UR@BARNEY.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > >Here's another idea. It sounds like you have a DECnet-only network >between you and the other site (no TCP/IP). Is that correct? Yep. We are running DECNET on our internal administreative net as well. We do have other LANS not connected to our WAN, from which full surfing via proxy server is available. Every one of our 22 campuses, including those which have the Administrative WAN, also have Windows 95 standalone internet machines. We have "Full access" just no full time servers and not from every desktop. We need to go through the political process of setting up security policys, permitted use, and the whole gamut of other things as well before we do provide full connectivity to every desk top. This would include deciding what level of connectivity is required at each desktop. >How about setting up an IP-over-DECnet tunnel, which you can do with >Cisco routers or with MultiNet on your VMS machines. This would allow >you to connect directly to PMDF's SMTP port on the remote machine, >without having to worry about configuring MX or PMDF -- instead you >will configure the Cisco routers or MultiNet systems to do >IP-over-DECnet. The budget is $0.00. I do have a VAXServer 3100 not currently in service, but I'd prefer to keep it spare to cover the 3 in service which aren't on maintainance. We have CSLG licenses, can the same thing be done over UCX (TCP/IP SErvices for VMS as I think the v4.x are called?) Even putting a system at AVC Calgary begins to require MX 5 for the anti spamming features. The diagram was also simplified: Our "Site" in the diagram is a WAN of 4 sites with VMS Clusters, and a fifth site with pathworks client systems only -- there are over 100 PCs and 8 VMS systems. The site where the X.25 router connects also hosts our Oracle database (student records) so I'm unwilling to expose it to the same extent I might expose other VMS systems. >The advantage of this is it is a cleaner configuration for your >mailers and it will give you access to the web and ftp sites from your >network, and may mean you don't need to get a direct internet >connection at all. Our internal dispersion (22 campuses in 22 communities over a 65000+ square Kilometer service region will almost certainly require that we have multiple internet connections, at the minimum to implement a PVN. Our existing WAN is implemeted over switched dialup and covers all the extended flat rate calling sones that overlap. Some campuses don't even have a LAN yet (4 room atco trailers with 2-5 Windows 95 machines, one instructor, an assistant -- maybe--, 25-35 FTE students) This also raises the ability, and probably the desire, for us to have a domain name that is independant of the domain name of our sister College AVC Calgary. Coupled with the desire to change our name for political reasons, now that we are board governed, this brings about the changes that might disrupt ongoing electronic communications: Which is what I'm trying to prevent -- two or three upcoming [domain] name changes being on the horizon over the next 1-3 years. Another possibliity is to set up a single machine (the 3100) directly on the net un-connected to our WAN, to provide the same services we need. It just will be much harder politically to enforce^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hencourage managements developing a security policy with local internet connection. (The whole can of worms hinted at in my first paragraph). There is some budget for buying a firewall, but no security policy for it to enforce, and I'm not sure management understands the requirement for the security policy. The existing policy is the informal one I've set: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy legislation require that we protect some of our information, and until I've policy from our board that elaborates upon this, so I'm treating ALL information in our Administrative domain (Our exiting internal WAN) as requiring full protection. E-mail and a few other permitted connections have been allowed, but nothing else. The Standalone machines permit full access to the internet, and allow management to know who is surfing so that they can perform their People management without wanting technical soloutions to a people problem. We have a number of bandwidth issues, and hopefully will be adding T1 and routing capabilities soon -- the bridged ethernet over dual switched 56k lines is swamped with our internal traffic. We are replacing our single collision domain ethernet with ATM and Switched ethernet in the next few weeks, and have routers to install when the TELECOM issues get ironed out. (We've got both Telco and provincial Public Wworks Issues to get resolved, with at least one possibility having us under a Government of Alberta Domain name) What was that curse about "Interesting times"? ;-) If you (the list in general, not just Dan) wish to discuss my general network issues (and I'd welcome the oportunity) perhaps we should take the discussion off MX-list. I'd prefer to keep this restricted as much as possible to a Mail soloution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Richardson (403) 751-3278 | My Personal opinions Network Analyst Fax (403) 751-3375 | only. Alberta Vocational College Lesser Slave Lake. | David.Richardson@GRDA.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:17:54 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 14:14:56 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980220141456.20277391@Cisco.COM> Subject: Re: Requesting some fundamental advice >>How about setting up an IP-over-DECnet tunnel, which you can do with >>Cisco routers or with MultiNet on your VMS machines. This would allow >>you to connect directly to PMDF's SMTP port on the remote machine, >>without having to worry about configuring MX or PMDF -- instead you >>will configure the Cisco routers or MultiNet systems to do >>IP-over-DECnet. > >The budget is $0.00. I do have a VAXServer 3100 not currently in service, >but I'd prefer to keep it spare to cover the 3 in service which aren't on >maintainance. We have CSLG licenses, can the same thing be done over UCX >(TCP/IP SErvices for VMS as I think the v4.x are called?) I don't think UCX can do IP-over-DECnet. What is encapsulating your X.25 packets today? It sounds like you're doing that with VAXes and not with routers? >Even putting a >system at AVC Calgary begins to require MX 5 for the anti spamming >features. Not necessarily -- you could do the anti-spamming at your host; however, it would be better to do it as close as possible to the origination of the spam (the Internet). >The diagram was also simplified: Our "Site" in the diagram is a WAN of 4 >sites with VMS Clusters, and a fifth site with pathworks client systems >only -- there are over 100 PCs and 8 VMS systems. The site where the X.25 >router connects also hosts our Oracle database (student records) so I'm >unwilling to expose it to the same extent I might expose other VMS systems. Okay. >Another possibliity is to set up a single machine (the 3100) directly on >the net un-connected to our WAN, to provide the same services we need. It >just will be much harder politically to enforce^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hencourage >managements developing a security policy with local internet connection. >(The whole can of worms hinted at in my first paragraph). That might be a good idea. It could be connected to your LAN and be made quite secure with proper filtering at the router (only allow port 25 to that specific host). >There is some budget for buying a firewall, but no security policy for it >to enforce, and I'm not sure management understands the requirement for the >security policy. Companies don't generally need a firewall - a router doing port filtering is usually quite sufficient. All vendor's routers can do port filtering. >If you (the list in general, not just Dan) wish to discuss my general >network issues (and I'd welcome the oportunity) perhaps we should take the >discussion off MX-list. I'd prefer to keep this restricted as much as >possible to a Mail soloution. I think running SMTP-over-DECnet to the PMDF host is the best bet. According to http://www.innosoft.com/iii/pmdf/v5-mta-openvms.html, PMDF support SMTP-over-DECnet, -TCP/IP, -X.25, and -X.29. -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:20:31 -0800 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 16:15:02 -0600 (MDT) From: David Richardson Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: Re: Requesting some fundamental advice To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <01ITT4KTB8KI001H53@BARNEY.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT >I don't think UCX can do IP-over-DECnet. What is encapsulating your >X.25 packets today? It sounds like you're doing that with VAXes >and not with routers? DEMSA and DEMSB Digital Routers. 19.2K link to AGNPAC (Alberta Government Network like Datapac). We have a router to install to upgrade to 56 K link. >>Even putting a >>system at AVC Calgary begins to require MX 5 for the anti spamming >>features. > >Not necessarily -- you could do the anti-spamming at your host; >however, it would be better to do it as close as possible to the >origination of the spam (the Internet). $500 somewhere though, no? >Companies don't generally need a firewall - a router doing port >filtering is usually quite sufficient. All vendor's routers can do >port filtering. A possiblity worth considering. > I think running SMTP-over-DECnet to the PMDF host is the best bet. As does AVC Calgary's pmdf maintainer. We are going to follow up with this, I believe. >According to http://www.innosoft.com/iii/pmdf/v5-mta-openvms.html, >PMDF support SMTP-over-DECnet, -TCP/IP, -X.25, and -X.29. > >-Dan Wing I'l check them out. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Richardson (403) 751-3278 | My Personal opinions Network Analyst Fax (403) 751-3375 | only. Alberta Vocational College Lesser Slave Lake. | David.Richardson@GRDA.AVC.CALGARY.AB.CA | ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:00:16 -0800 From: "Patrick Cox" To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:59:11 AST Subject: RE: MX5.0 install problems Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com In-Reply-To: <009C1B08.6C308AC8.1@MadGoat.Com> Message-ID: <123F7775650@es.nsac.ns.ca> > >Since I am aready to install MX5.0 and the check is in the mail, are > >there any problems that have discovered. In particular there was a > >message saying that the 30 day trial license did not work. True or > >false? > > No, that was cleared up. The only actual installation bug found so [snip] > > That problem has been fixed in the latest kit on ftp.madgoat.com. You > can check to see if you have the corrected kit by looking at the > revision date of the file MX050.A in the MX050.ZIP file (using UNZIP Then why am I not able to run anything but FLQ manager? Here is an output from mx_router.log: %MGLIC-F-NOAUTH, use of MADGOAT MX not authorized -MGLIC-F-NOLICENSE, no license loaded for MADGOAT MX %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows module name routine name line rel PC abs PC AGENT AGENT_MAIN 276 000000DC 0000777C MX_ROUTER MX_ROUTER 49 00000019 00003C19 and here is the pertinent file listing: MX050.A;1 9-FEB-1998 08:26:10.18 MX050.B;1 17-JAN-1998 13:28:17.28 MX050.C;1 17-JAN-1998 13:28:22.41 Did I really have to read the license aggreement while installing? I read it before doing the install, I didn't want to read it again? Where did I mess up? Patrick M. Cox Information Technology Section (Truro) Resources Corporate Services Unit (DAM,DNR,Fish,Env) 893-6233 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:38:58 -0800 Sender: madison@MadGoat.Com Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:38:53 -0800 From: Matt Madison Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C24BA.64551C72.3@MadGoat.Com> Subject: RE: MX5.0 install problems >Then why am I not able to run anything but FLQ manager? > >Here is an output from mx_router.log: > >%MGLIC-F-NOAUTH, use of MADGOAT MX not authorized >-MGLIC-F-NOLICENSE, no license loaded for MADGOAT MX >%TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows [...] >Did I really have to read the license aggreement while installing? I >read it before doing the install, I didn't want to read it again? > >Where did I mess up? You do not have to read the text of the agreement on-line, but you must at least answer YES when asked if you agree to the terms. If you answered NO by mistake, then the installation procedure would not generate the evaluation key for you. -Matt -- Matthew Madison | MadGoat Software | PO Box 556, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 USA madison@madgoat.com http://www.madgoat.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 07:32:50 -0800 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:45:08 -0700 Message-ID: <199802251545.IAA08249@ael1.allianceelec.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: MX-List@MadGoat.com From: Barry Treahy Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Subject: MX 4.2 I have to presume that the problem I'm having is due to an incorrect installation on my part. MX 4.2 works fine, forwarding messages to sites where if I do a nslookup on the site, it returns an A address record. Sites that don't but have MX entries, such as worldnet.att.net, causes MX to fail with: --> Error description: Error-For: yadayada@worldnet.att.net Error-Code: 2 Error-Text: %MX-F-NOHOST, no such host -Retry count exceeded -(Via MML1.MIDWEST-MICROWAVE.COM) Error-End: 1 error detected Any ideas? Barry --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Treahy, Jr. Email: treahy@allianceelec.com Phone: (602) 483-9400 FAX: (602) 443-3898 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alliance Electronics, Inc. * PO Box 30650 * Phoenix, AZ 85046-06590 Semiconductor & Computer System Sales WWW: http://www.allianceelec.com Phone: (505) 837-2801 Email: sales@allianceelec.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... but its a DRY HEAT! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 07:34:54 -0800 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 09:34:38 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com CC: TREAHY@ALLIANCEELEC.COM Message-ID: <009C2559.0E51EA0E.38@goat.process.com> Subject: RE: MX 4.2 Barry Treahy writes: > >I have to presume that the problem I'm having is due to an incorrect >installation on my part. MX 4.2 works fine, forwarding messages to sites >where if I do a nslookup on the site, it returns an A address record. Sites >that don't but have MX entries, such as worldnet.att.net, causes MX to fail >with: > >--> Error description: > >Error-For: yadayada@worldnet.att.net >Error-Code: 2 >Error-Text: %MX-F-NOHOST, no such host > -Retry count exceeded > -(Via MML1.MIDWEST-MICROWAVE.COM) > Are you using MultiNet V4.0x? If so, you need to grab the latest NETLIB (V2.1) from FTP.MADGOAT.COM in [.MADGOAT]NETLIB021.ZIP. There is a bug in the version of NETLIB that's shipped with MX V4.2 that is exercised by MultiNet V4.x and causes the problem you're seeing. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:52:02 -0800 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:44:12 EST From: Robert Byer Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C257B.EB7B6500.24@mail.all-net.net> Subject: RE: MX 4.2 > >Are you using MultiNet V4.0x? If so, you need to grab the latest >NETLIB (V2.1) from FTP.MADGOAT.COM in [.MADGOAT]NETLIB021.ZIP. There >is a bug in the version of NETLIB that's shipped with MX V4.2 that is >exercised by MultiNet V4.x and causes the problem you're seeing. > I'm having the same problem, I've installed the VERY latest version of MX and I'm still having the problem. Its a pain in my side, but one that I've learned to live with, but I would like to know why exactly this is happening. I'm using the latest version of Pathway TCP/IP with VMS v6.1 +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Robert Alan Byer | A-Com Computing, Inc. | | Vice-President | 115 W. Washington Street, Suite 1165 | | A-Com Computing, Inc. | Indianapolis, IN 46204 | | Phone: (317)673-4204 | http://www.all-net.net/ | +------------------------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | byer@mail.all-net.net | I don't want to take over the world, | | http://www.all-net.net/~byer | just my own little part of it. | +------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Send an E-mail request to obtain my PGP key. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:54:24 -0800 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 12:54:13 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C2574.EFDB5611.5@goat.process.com> Subject: RE: MX 4.2 Robert Byer writes: > >I'm having the same problem, I've installed the VERY latest version of MX >and I'm still having the problem. Its a pain in my side, but one that I've >learned to live with, but I would like to know why exactly this is >happening. > >I'm using the latest version of Pathway TCP/IP with VMS v6.1 > And the original poster is using CMU-IP, neither of which we (Matt and I) run. However, Matt may have some more suggestions, so I'll let him speak up when he gets a chance. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:56:27 -0800 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:41:50 EST From: Robert Byer Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C257B.96933FE0.18@mail.all-net.net> Subject: RE: MX 4.2 > >I have to presume that the problem I'm having is due to an incorrect >installation on my part. MX 4.2 works fine, forwarding messages to sites >where if I do a nslookup on the site, it returns an A address record. Sites >that don't but have MX entries, such as worldnet.att.net, causes MX to fail >with: > >--> Error description: > >Error-For: yadayada@worldnet.att.net >Error-Code: 2 >Error-Text: %MX-F-NOHOST, no such host >-Retry count exceeded >-(Via MML1.MIDWEST-MICROWAVE.COM) > >Error-End: 1 error detected > >Any ideas? > I also have this problem and have yet to get an answer on the problem. Personally I just look up the shere the MX record is pointing to and manually enter a PATH in MX for it, currently I have about 1,000 paths. +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Robert Alan Byer | A-Com Computing, Inc. | | Vice-President | 115 W. Washington Street, Suite 1165 | | A-Com Computing, Inc. | Indianapolis, IN 46204 | | Phone: (317)673-4204 | http://www.all-net.net/ | +------------------------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | byer@mail.all-net.net | I don't want to take over the world, | | http://www.all-net.net/~byer | just my own little part of it. | +------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Send an E-mail request to obtain my PGP key. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:15:32 -0800 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:14:32 EST From: Robert Byer Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C2580.281579C0.32@mail.all-net.net> Subject: RE: MX 4.2 > >I'm having the same problem, I've installed the VERY latest version of MX >and I'm still having the problem. > Sorry a typo here, I ment to say that I have the VERY LATEST version of NetLIB installed, still running MX v4.2 though. (Sleep works wonders, wish I had some) +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Robert Alan Byer | A-Com Computing, Inc. | | Vice-President | 115 W. Washington Street, Suite 1165 | | A-Com Computing, Inc. | Indianapolis, IN 46204 | | Phone: (317)673-4204 | http://www.all-net.net/ | +------------------------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | byer@mail.all-net.net | I don't want to take over the world, | | http://www.all-net.net/~byer | just my own little part of it. | +------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Send an E-mail request to obtain my PGP key. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:13:49 -0800 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:18:58 CST From: iman@access.tkm.mb.ca Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: mx-list@madgoat.com Message-ID: <009C2639.2DA69716.3@access.tkm.mb.ca> Subject: Problems sending mail with attachments - MX 4.2 Some of the user are on our system are having problems send mail to few other systems. This situation only occurs when a message with an attachment is sent. And is currently a problem with about 10 sites (?) but mail with attachments to other site works fine. The MX queue error message that shows up is: Network partner disconnect logical link... (or something like that). The target server returns the follows error messages indicating that the message is not encoded correctly and closes the connection. -Sent: MAIL FROM: -Rcvd: 250 ... Sender ok -Sent: RCPT TO: -Rcvd: 250 ... Recipient ok -Sent: DATA -Rcvd: 354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself Error-End: 1 error detected I have verified this with the target site adminsitrator and their mail server is convinced it is receiving an invalid message. The mail client sending the mail can be "MS Inbox" or "Eudora" both produce the same results. MX Version: MX4.2 AXP What is this problem and is there a fix for it? Thanks, Jim Gamble TKM Software iman@access.tkm.mb.ca ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 10:22:49 -0800 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:22:41 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C2639.B22FD987.5@ALPHA.WKU.EDU> Subject: RE: Problems sending mail with attachments - MX 4.2 iman@access.tkm.mb.ca writes: > >The target server returns the follows error messages indicating that the message >is not encoded correctly and closes the connection. > > -Sent: MAIL FROM: > -Rcvd: 250 ... Sender ok > -Sent: RCPT TO: > -Rcvd: 250 ... Recipient ok > -Sent: DATA > -Rcvd: 354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself > Error-End: 1 error detected > >I have verified this with the target site adminsitrator and their mail server >is convinced it is receiving an invalid message. > How does he know that? I'd recommend you try enabling MX_SMTP_DEBUG so you can see the full transfer as it tries to go to see what's really being sent. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 19:08:30 -0800 Sender: madison@MadGoat.Com Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 19:08:25 -0800 From: Matt Madison Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C2672.60752395.1@MadGoat.Com> Subject: RE: MX 4.2 Hunter wrote: >Robert Byer writes: >> >>I'm having the same problem, I've installed the VERY latest version of MX >>and I'm still having the problem. Its a pain in my side, but one that I've >>learned to live with, but I would like to know why exactly this is >>happening. >> >>I'm using the latest version of Pathway TCP/IP with VMS v6.1 >> >And the original poster is using CMU-IP, neither of which we (Matt and >I) run. However, Matt may have some more suggestions, so I'll let >him speak up when he gets a chance. For everyone's info, the latest version of NETLIB is V2.2, which is included in the MX V5.0 kit and is also available separately. You can verify the version of NETLIB you have by using: $ ANALYZE/IMAGE/INTER NETLIB_SHR and looking for the image file identification under the Image Identification Information section. For PathWay problems: there were some fixes in the DNS resolver code in NETLIB V2.1A, which was not initializing properly on PathWay systems. If you're running V2.1A or later and are still having resolver problems with PathWay, let me know. For CMU IP problems: first, make sure that you have increased the SYSGEN parameter MAXBUF to at least 2300. If you still have problems, take a look at Appendix A of the NETLIB Installation Guide for the logical names you can define to bypass CMU's NAMRES resolver. That may also help. -Matt -- Matthew Madison | MadGoat Software | PO Box 556, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 USA madison@madgoat.com http://www.madgoat.com ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 19:31:12 -0800 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:30:09 EST From: Robert Byer Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C268E.8F014920.10@mail.all-net.net> Subject: RE: MX 4.2 > >For PathWay problems: there were some fixes in the DNS resolver code in >NETLIB V2.1A, which was not initializing properly on PathWay systems. If >you're running V2.1A or later and are still having resolver problems with >PathWay, let me know. > I upgraded to the latest version of NetLib and now the problem has changed. (Using Pathway TCP/IP still) For DNS entries that are only MX records and have not A records (like before) I get a "connection-rejected" error and if do a NSLOOKUP for the address where the MX record points to and add a path for it (like I've always done) to my MX configuration, I can get a message through to that host. So their still appears to be a problem. +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Robert Alan Byer | A-Com Computing, Inc. | | Vice-President | 115 W. Washington Street, Suite 1165 | | A-Com Computing, Inc. | Indianapolis, IN 46204 | | Phone: (317)673-4204 | http://www.all-net.net/ | +------------------------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | byer@mail.all-net.net | I don't want to take over the world, | | http://www.all-net.net/~byer | just my own little part of it. | +------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Send an E-mail request to obtain my PGP key. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:03:07 -0800 From: "Patrick Cox" To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:02:14 AST Subject: No Relay and rejman rules Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <16A05EA128E@es.nsac.ns.ca> We use Pegasus Mail on our Novell servers. If a user forwards a message that originated from offsite (me@hotmail.com) to a user at another offsite address (you@madgoat.com), it appears to the NORELAY filter as though it is relay. The typical headers in the message would be: TO: you@madgoat.com FROM: me@hotmail.com RESENT-FROM: myself@nsac.ns.ca <==== Local address So if I add a rule to rejman: add rej *@* /accept /address=xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx where the IP address is that of the novell server of the user forwarding the message. Should this then allow the mail to go through? I tried and it blocked it (:-( I think I see how this might work and it saves a lot of overhead. But is a bit of a pain when it comes to this situation. Could someone tell me the order and priority of how the messages are checked? Patrick M. Cox Information Technology Section (Truro) Resources Corporate Services Unit (DAM,DNR,Fish,Env) 893-6233 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:21:01 -0800 From: "Patrick Cox" To: mx-list@madgoat.com Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:20:14 AST Subject: Rejman sender patterns Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <16A52DD55B9@es.nsac.ns.ca> What are valid patterns for rejection rules. On my spam filter I use with MX4.2 I had it search the from address for specified text, regardless of whether it was in the user name or host name. As well I had it check to see if the user name of the sender was all numbers (we get a lot of spam from numbered users). For instance my kill list might have the following entries: xxx sex money 2.com This will filter: user@money.com makemoney@msn.com greatsex@phone.net shiela@xxx.com success@12722.com and any addresses like: 786543876@aol.com 218736@msn.com get filtered by the numbered user filter. The samples in the mx5.0 manual suggets that the '@' must be present. Is this so? I like the count and purge features in the rejman database. Patrick M. Cox Information Technology Section (Truro) Resources Corporate Services Unit (DAM,DNR,Fish,Env) 893-6233 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:02:37 -0800 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:02:31 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980227110231.202c7e02@Cisco.COM> Subject: RE: No Relay and rejman rules >We use Pegasus Mail on our Novell servers. If a user forwards a >message that originated from offsite (me@hotmail.com) to a user at >another offsite address (you@madgoat.com), it appears to the NORELAY >filter as though it is relay. The typical headers in the message >would be: Headers aren't used by MX's reject rules -- the reject rules use the envelope (MAIL FROM, RCPT TO). Pegasus mail should be putting the local user on the MAIL FROM, as the originating user shouldn't receive bounces. If Pegasus isn't doing this, it isn't doing the right thing. I know Eudora has a "remail" feature (or used to) which misbehaved as well, and I know Eudora still mucks with headers in an inappropriate way (changes the From line to say stuff like "From: Usera via Userb " to indicate a forwarded message, which is absolutely bogus). >Could someone tell me the order and priority of how the messages are >checked? Hm; they don't appear to be automatically re-ordered like MCP's PATH. I would assume they are processed in-order, and the first match is applied, but the docs don't mention the behavior either way. -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:08:41 -0800 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:08:31 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C2709.43FF8A3D.7@goat.process.com> Subject: RE: No Relay and rejman rules Dan Wing writes: > >Hm; they don't appear to be automatically re-ordered like MCP's PATH. >I would assume they are processed in-order, and the first match is >applied, but the docs don't mention the behavior either way. > Yes, that's correct: they're processed in the order in which they are defined. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:10:43 -0800 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:10:35 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980227111035.202c7e02@Cisco.COM> Subject: RE: Rejman sender patterns >What are valid patterns for rejection rules. VMS wildcards "*" and "%". >On my spam filter I use with MX4.2 I had it search the from address for >specified text, regardless of whether it was in the user name or host >name. As well I had it check to see if the user name of the sender was >all numbers (we get a lot of spam from numbered users). > >For instance my kill list might have the following entries: > >xxx >sex >money >2.com For the same behavior in MX V5, setup rejection rules like: *xxx* *sex* *money* *2.com Note that you don't have to be quite so strong-handed with MX V5 -- you can be a bit gentler in your rules. With MultiNet's mailer, for example, I have the following rejects for AOL mail. MX's rejection rules can have something similar: ! According to Webmaster@aol.com, "AOL usernames must begin with a letter, ! can not be more than 10 characters long, and cannot contain a period or ! symbol." ! ! And AOL usernames must be at least three characters long ! 0*@aol.com 1*@aol.com 2*@aol.com 3*@aol.com 4*@aol.com 5*@aol.com 6*@aol.com 7*@aol.com 8*@aol.com 9*@aol.com %%%%%%%%%%%*@aol.com %%@aol.com %@aol.com *.*@aol.com *_*@aol.com *-*@aol.com I urge you to not block mail that has numbers in it -- some companies use employee IDs for usernames, as ugly as that is. However, if you haven't gotten a complaint from any of your users that they can't exchange mail with someone, it is probably worthwhile to get the extra spam protection by blocking all numeric usernames. Note MX V5 can also block mail if the domain is unknown. This can be pretty useful and we block a lot of spam this way. Unfortunately DNS outages have sometimes caused rejections of valid mail, though. Also see ADDSPAM.COM, in the MX_CONTRIB directory, which automates adding records to MX's rejection database. If you get spam, you can simply forward it to an email address on your system and the MX SITE agent will run ADDSPAM.COM, parse the spam message, and add the offending Return-Path to your rejection database. A confirmation mail is then sent to the user and the local postmaster. After you're comfortable with it you can allow some of your users to use it so they can help build your rejection database and block more spam. If you notice patterns or a very aggresive site you can use wildcards or block specific IP addresses by running REJMAN manually. -Dan Wing ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:12:35 -0800 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:12:25 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C2709.CF59131A.11@goat.process.com> Subject: RE: Rejman sender patterns "Patrick Cox" writes: > >What are valid patterns for rejection rules. > [...] >For instance my kill list might have the following entries: > >xxx >sex >money >2.com > [...] >The samples in the mx5.0 manual suggets that the '@' must be present. >Is this so? > It's a good idea, just to be sure that you're matching what you want to match, but it's not required. You can add checks for "xxx", "sex", etc., just like you've been doing. As for your numbered checks, the SPAMFILTER module can be used for that (and, in fact, it has just such a check. You can also add REJECTION rules for things like "1*@*", "2*@*", etc. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:16:05 -0800 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:15:54 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C270A.4C43C357.3@goat.process.com> Subject: RE: Rejman sender patterns Hunter Goatley writes: > >It's a good idea, just to be sure that you're matching what you want >to match, but it's not required. You can add checks for "xxx", "sex", >etc., just like you've been doing. > Dan's answer was, of course, correct and more detailed than mine. You'd want to use "*xxx*", etc. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:16:19 -0800 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:14:16 -0500 From: "Brian Tillman, x8425" Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C2712.733C7960.1@swdev.si.com> Subject: RE: No Relay and rejman rules Dan Wing writes: >Headers aren't used by MX's reject rules -- the reject rules use >the envelope (MAIL FROM, RCPT TO). Yes they are, if you tell REJMAN to use them. That's what the /HEADER qualifier on the ADD REJECTION command is for. -- Brian Tillman Internet: tillman_brian at si.com Smiths Industries, Inc. tillman at swdev.si.com 4141 Eastern Ave., MS239 Addresses modified to prevent Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 SPAM. Replace "at" with "@" This opinion doesn't represent that of my company ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:18:36 -0800 From: "Patrick Cox" To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:17:44 AST Subject: RE: No Relay and rejman rules Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com In-Reply-To: <980227110231.202c7e02@Cisco.COM> Message-ID: <16B486B7A41@es.nsac.ns.ca> > >Could someone tell me the order and priority of how the messages are > >checked? > > Hm; they don't appear to be automatically re-ordered like MCP's PATH. > I would assume they are processed in-order, and the first match is > applied, but the docs don't mention the behavior either way. Just to clarify this. I want to know how a message flows through MX and what antispam checks are done when. (Is a relay check done before rejman, etc.) I thought I saw this in a manual somewhere can't find it now. Must have been in a dream 8-) Patrick M. Cox Information Technology Section (Truro) Resources Corporate Services Unit (DAM,DNR,Fish,Env) 893-6233 ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:39:36 -0800 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:39:26 -0800 From: Dan Wing Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <980227113926.202c7e02@Cisco.COM> Subject: RE: No Relay and rejman rules >>Headers aren't used by MX's reject rules -- the reject rules use >>the envelope (MAIL FROM, RCPT TO). > >Yes they are, if you tell REJMAN to use them. That's what the /HEADER qualifier >on the ADD REJECTION command is for. But it doesn't consider it a relay attempt, it simply rejects the message outright. -d ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:42:29 -0800 Sender: goathunter@MadGoat.com Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 13:42:19 -0600 From: Hunter Goatley Reply-To: MX-List@MadGoat.com To: MX-List@MadGoat.com Message-ID: <009C270D.FCEB209E.25@goat.process.com> Subject: RE: No Relay and rejman rules "Patrick Cox" writes: > >Just to clarify this. >I want to know how a message flows through MX and what antispam checks >are done when. (Is a relay check done before rejman, etc.) > I think it goes like this in the MX SMTP Server: - invalid domain names - the black-hole check is made (if enabled) - envelope rejections (REJMAN) - relay - header rejections (REJMAN) I think that's the right order. And then MX Router has the filter callouts, which is where the optional SPAMFILTER fits in. Hunter ------ Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ http://www.madgoat.com/hunter.html