HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jody@lib.haifa.ac.il (Yosef Branse)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.os.vms
Subject: VMS MAIL - Why Does DELETE/ALL Delete the Folder Too?
Date: 13 Aug 92 11:51:32 GMT
Organization: Haifa University Library

I use VMS MAIL on a VAX 6320. 

I organize my incoming mail into folders. Every so often I do some
housecleaning, in the course of which I use the command

     DELETE/ALL

to erase the current contents of specific folders. 
This operation also deletes the FOLDER, even though I'd like to retain it
for subsequent mail - next time I try to FILE a letter, I get the message

      "folder does not exist, do you want to create it", etc.

This is like chucking out your filing cabinet every time you throw out some
old letters!

I've looked in the manual and found no parameter for DELETE that allows for
retention of the folder. I know I can delete entries indivdually, but that
would be ridiculous; besides, I have a command procedure for automatic
purging of various folders.

Any explanations of this phenomenon and suggestions for a cure would be very
welcome.

Thanks,

****************************************************************************
* Yosef (Jody) Branse             University of Haifa Library              *
*                                 Mt. Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel          *
*                                 Tel.: 972 4-240288                       *
*                                 FAX:  972 4-257753                       *
* Israeli U. DECNET: HAIFAL::JODY                                          *
* Internet/ILAN:     JODY@LIB.HAIFA.AC.IL                                  *
****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: Re: can an @domain be numeric?
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
Date: 22 Aug 92 07:47:28

thanks, neil and andy.  i'll consider specifying my new encapsulation form
to have leading digits, and point these IBM/VM/SMTP hate-mail messages back
at their postmasters.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
From: enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: New date format (year) ?
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:27:06 GMT
Organization: Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway

jpaul@gwx400A.bull.fr writes:
|
|
|   I have seen that on sendmail 5.65 it seems that the year in the date
|   field is writen with 4 digits :
|
|   ex :
|   in 5.61 :
|   Tue, 18 Aug 92 12:08:02 +0200
|
|   in 5.65 :
|   Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:08:02 +0200
|
|   I presume this is not a hazard : year 2000 is comming and it is probably
|   the reason of that change.

Actually, RFC 822 changed the allowed 4-digit year specication of RFC
733 into a required 2-digit year specification.  This was of course
needlessly short-sighted, and the problem was fixed in RFC 1123, which
says, in section 5.2.14:

         All mail software SHOULD use 4-digit years in dates, to ease
         the transition to the next century.

|   But this causes me a problem on a gateway which is not able to manage
|   that format. And I would like to know if there an RFC or some think
|   concerning this before submitting the problem to the gateway's
|   programmer.

RFC 1123 should be all you need.  The gateway programmer should be shot
for being so foolish as to not accept four-digit years to begin with.
The same applies to automatic date conversion utilities which don't
understand date specifications like

	Thursday, 20 August 1992

which some BITNET sites are wont to send out (clue: ignore the rest of
the word after you've recognized the three first letters).

Best regards,
</Erik>
--
Erik Naggum             |  ISO  8879 SGML     |      +47 295 0313
                        |  ISO 10744 HyTime   |
<erik@naggum.no>        |  ISO 10646 UCS      |      Memento, terrigena.
<enag@ifi.uio.no>       |  ISO  9899 C        |      Memento, vita brevis.
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: New date format (year) ?
From: Andy.Linton@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Andy Linton)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:15:14 GMT
Organization: Dept of Comp Science, Victoria Uni, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND


In article <129@bull.bull.fr>, jpaul@gwx400A.bull.fr writes:
|> 
|> -- 
|> 
|> Hello every body,
|> 
|>   I have seen that on sendmail 5.65 it seems that the year in the date field 
is writen with 4 digits :
|> 
|> ex :
|> in 5.61 :
|> Tue, 18 Aug 92 12:08:02 +0200
|> 
|> in 5.65 :
|> Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:08:02 +0200
|> 
|> I presume this is not a hazard : year 2000 is comming and it is probably the
reason of that change.
|> 
|> But this causes me a problem on a gateway which is not able to manage that 
format. And I would like to know if there an RFC or some think concerning this
before submitting the problem to the gateway's programmer.


In RFC 1123 - Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support:

5.2.14  RFC-822 Date and Time Specification: RFC-822 Section 5

         The syntax for the date is hereby changed to:

            date = 1*2DIGIT month 2*4DIGIT


         All mail software SHOULD use 4-digit years in dates, to ease
         the transition to the next century.

         There is a strong trend towards the use of numeric timezone
         indicators, and implementations SHOULD use numeric timezones
         instead of timezone names.  However, all implementations MUST
         accept either notation.  If timezone names are used, they MUST
         be exactly as defined in RFC-822.

         The military time zones are specified incorrectly in RFC-822:
         they count the wrong way from UT (the signs are reversed).  As
         a result, military time zones in RFC-822 headers carry no
         information.

         Finally, note that there is a typo in the definition of "zone"
         in the syntax summary of appendix D; the correct definition
         occurs in Section 3 of RFC-822.
From: vixie@PA.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: can an @domain be numeric?
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:41:58 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA07226; Fri, 21 Aug 92 10:42:04 -0700
X-Received: by cognition.pa.dec.com; id AA28843; Fri, 21 Aug 92 10:41:59 -0700
X-To: comp.mail.headers.usenet
X-Cc: brian@ucsd.edu, fair@apple.com
X-Mts: smtp

rfc822 implies "yes".  many IBM/VM/SMTP mailers seem to say "no" in that
if they see

	From: user@10.977.enet.dec.com

they yell about the "1" following the "@".

we're trying to design an address encapsulation and i'd like to know what
rules i ought to follow to cause the least net.strife.  is it the case that
the first character of a domain can't be numeric?  (what about 3com.com?)
is it that the first token must not be purely numeric?  is it the case that
all tokens must not be purely numeric?

speculations, suggestions, and flames all welcome.
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: can an @domain be numeric?
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:13:40 GMT

In article <9208211741.AA28843@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@PA.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>rfc822 implies "yes".  many IBM/VM/SMTP mailers seem to say "no" in that
>if they see
>
>	From: user@10.977.enet.dec.com
>
>they yell about the "1" following the "@".

You can't go by RFC822 on this.  RFC822 was apparently written to be
completely general, and not specific to Internet domains.

The format of hostnames is defined in RFC952, and is amended in RFC1123.
The RFC1123 amendmendments specifically allow digits, so the address you
give is OK.

By the way, some IBM/VM/SMTP mailers reject 3com.com also.
From: jpaul@gwx400A.bull.fr
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: New date format (year) ?
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:11:45 GMT
Reply-To: J.P.Olivier@frso.bull.fr
Organization: BULL, Saint-Ouen FRANCE


-- 

Hello every body,

  I have seen that on sendmail 5.65 it seems that the year in the date field is writen with 4 digits :

ex :
in 5.61 :
Tue, 18 Aug 92 12:08:02 +0200

in 5.65 :
Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:08:02 +0200

I presume this is not a hazard : year 2000 is comming and it is probably the reason of that change.

But this causes me a problem on a gateway which is not able to manage that format. And I would like to know if there an RFC or some think concerning this before submitting the problem to the gateway's programmer.

Thanks per advance,
Best regards,
-------------------------------- 	Jean-Paul OLIVIER
Email : J.P.Olivier@frso.bull.fr	BULL.S.A.
Phone : (1) 49 45 50 40			20, rue Dieumegard
bullcom : 222 5040			93406 SAINT-OUEN CEDEX
fax : (1) 49 45 53 36			France
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
From: Andy.Linton@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Andy Linton)
Subject: Re: can an @domain be numeric?
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 07:47:47 GMT

In article <9208211741.AA28843@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@PA.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>rfc822 implies "yes".  many IBM/VM/SMTP mailers seem to say "no" in that
>if they see
>
>	From: user@10.977.enet.dec.com
>
>they yell about the "1" following the "@".

It seems pretty clear to me that this address is 100%. RFC 1123 has
this to say - the emphasis is not mine, it comes straight from the RFC
text. 

   2.1  Host Names and Numbers

      The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952
      [DNS:4].  One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the
      restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a
      letter or a digit.  Host software MUST support this more liberal
      syntax.

      Host software MUST handle host names of up to 63 characters and
      SHOULD handle host names of up to 255 characters.

      Whenever a user inputs the identity of an Internet host, it SHOULD
      be possible to enter either (1) a host domain name or (2) an IP
      address in dotted-decimal ("#.#.#.#") form.  The host SHOULD check
      the string syntactically for a dotted-decimal number before
      looking it up in the Domain Name System.

      DISCUSSION:
           This last requirement is not intended to specify the complete
           syntactic form for entering a dotted-decimal host number;
           that is considered to be a user-interface issue.  For
           example, a dotted-decimal number must be enclosed within
           "[ ]" brackets for SMTP mail (see Section 5.2.17).  This
           notation could be made universal within a host system,
           simplifying the syntactic checking for a dotted-decimal
           number.

           If a dotted-decimal number can be entered without such
           identifying delimiters, then a full syntactic check must be
           made, because a segment of a host domain name is now allowed
           to begin with a digit and could legally be entirely numeric
           (see Section 6.1.2.4).  However, a valid host name can never
           have the dotted-decimal form #.#.#.#, since at least the
           highest-level component label will be alphabetic.



Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
From: a2824as@cd1.lrz-muenchen.de (Michael Storz)
Subject: Re: New date format (year) ?
Reply-To: Michael.Storz@lrz.lrz-muenchen.dbp.de
Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum Muenchen, Germany
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:50:50 GMT

In article <129@bull.bull.fr>, jpaul@gwx400A.bull.fr writes:
|> 
|> -- 
|> 
|> Hello every body,
|> 
|>   I have seen that on sendmail 5.65 it seems that the year in the date field 
|>   is writen with 4 digits :
|> 
|> ex :
|> in 5.61 :
|> Tue, 18 Aug 92 12:08:02 +0200
|> 
|> in 5.65 :
|> Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:08:02 +0200
|> 
|> I presume this is not a hazard : year 2000 is comming and it is probably the 
|> reason of that change.
|> 
|> But this causes me a problem on a gateway which is not able to manage that 
|> format. And I would like to know if there an RFC or some think concerning 
|> this before submitting the problem to the gateway's programmer.


The answer is: RFC 1123

      5.2.14  RFC-822 Date and Time Specification: RFC-822 Section 5

         The syntax for the date is hereby changed to:

            date = 1*2DIGIT month 2*4DIGIT

         All mail software SHOULD use 4-digit years in dates, to ease
         the transition to the next century.

         There is a strong trend towards the use of numeric timezone
         indicators, and implementations SHOULD use numeric timezones
         instead of timezone names.  However, all implementations MUST
         accept either notation.  If timezone names are used, they MUST
         be exactly as defined in RFC-822.

         The military time zones are specified incorrectly in RFC-822:
         they count the wrong way from UT (the signs are reversed).  As
         a result, military time zones in RFC-822 headers carry no
         information.

         Finally, note that there is a typo in the definition of "zone"
         in the syntax summary of appendix D; the correct definition
         occurs in Section 3 of RFC-822.

Most software is not able to handle this at the moment, but it begins to
change.

|> 
|> Thanks per advance,
|> Best regards,
|> -------------------------------- 	Jean-Paul OLIVIER
|> Email : J.P.Olivier@frso.bull.fr	BULL.S.A.
|> Phone : (1) 49 45 50 40			20, rue Dieumegard
|> bullcom : 222 5040			93406 SAINT-OUEN CEDEX
|> fax : (1) 49 45 53 36			France

-- 

Michael Storz
================================================================================
                                      !   X.400 : G=michael;S=storz;OU1=lrz;
   Leibniz-Rechenzentrum              !           P=lrz-muenchen;A=dbp;C=de
   Barer Str. 21                      !   RFC822: storz@lrz.lrz-muenchen.dbp.de
   8000 Muenchen 2                    !   Fax   : ++ 49 89 2809460
   Germany                            !   Tel   : ++ 49 89 2105 7420
================================================================================
From: uucpmap@rutgers.rutgers.edu (UUCP Mapping Project)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.maps
Subject: UUCP map for u.aus.nt.1
Date: 22 Aug 92 07:07:56 GMT
Expires: 6 Oct 92 07:07:56 GMT
Supersedes: <Aug.14.02.52.32.1992.20657@rutgers.rutgers.edu>

:	This is a shell archive.
:	Remove everything above this line and
:	run the following text with /bin/sh to create:
:	u.aus.nt.1
: This archive created: Sat Aug 22 03:07:54 1992
echo shar: extracting u.aus.nt.1
cat << 'SHAR_EOF' > u.aus.nt.1
file {u.aus.nt.1} # Wed Aug 19 11:31:08 +1000 1992

# updates to <Christopher.Vance@adfa.oz.au>, <cjsv@adfa.oz.au> or <ccadfa!cjsv>

# u.aus.1 explains entry order
#
# Australia - Northern Territory

#N	dme.nt.gov.au
#O	Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energey
#R	from AARNET resource guide
#W	cjsv@adfa.oz.au (Christopher Vance); Wed Jun  3 20:46:00 +1000 1992

#N	.ntu.edu.au, ntu.edu.au, ucnt.edu.au
#O	Northern Territory University
#W	cjsv@adfa.oz.au (Christopher Vance); Wed Jul 15 15:48:14 +1000 1992

# ucnt.edu.au -> ntu.edu.au

# u.aus.nt.1 - end
SHAR_EOF
:	End of shell archive
exit 0
From: uucpmap@rutgers.rutgers.edu (UUCP Mapping Project)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.maps
Subject: UUCP map for u.aus.csiro.1
Date: 22 Aug 92 07:06:57 GMT
Expires: 6 Oct 92 07:06:56 GMT
Supersedes: <Aug.14.02.51.08.1992.20333@rutgers.rutgers.edu>

:	This is a shell archive.
:	Remove everything above this line and
:	run the following text with /bin/sh to create:
:	u.aus.csiro.1
: This archive created: Sat Aug 22 03:06:54 1992
echo shar: extracting u.aus.csiro.1
cat << 'SHAR_EOF' > u.aus.csiro.1
SHAR_EOF
:	End of shell archive
exit 0
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: IDA-sendmail: NIS vs. DNS name lookup
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:12:04 GMT

In article <rhoward.714153528@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
>                           The NIS server maps were made with the -b
>option so that name lookups that fail at the local NIS level will then
>be handed to DNS.  The NIS master server has a /etc/resolv.conf file
>that points to the DNS machine (not under my control).

>       I like this hand off scheme because my access to the name server
>is not perfectly reliable and this way my hosts can communicate among
>themselves even when the DNS machine is down.
>
>So now I compile IDA-sendmail with DNS/BIND stuff built in.  The client
>I test on does not have a resolv.conf file and thus name lookups won't
>work.  Should I take the DNS stuff out (thus allowing name lookups
>using NIS)?  If I do this will I lose the ability to deliver to MX
>records (which I am required to do)?  How can I get the best of both
>worlds?

  If you use NIS rather than DNS, you will see two effects:

	Mail which requires MX records will fail (be bounced).

	Other mail will be unreliable (sometimes bounce), because a
	failed nameserver lookup via NIS will be interpreted as "Host
	unknown" instead of being treated as an indicator to queue the
	message for later retry.

  Your best bet is:

	Have a /etc/resolv.conf on all machines not running their own
	nameserver.  Mainly sendmail and nslookup will use this.

	Run a nameserver on your NIS master, or some other machine you
	control.  You can probably make it an unofficial secondary server
	to the campus main DNS server (so that local names are guaranteed
	to always be in cache), and you can make it a forwarder,
	so that all requests are normally made through the campus server.
	This way you will have backup in case the server you currently
	use is down.

	In your M4 file, use the VALIDATION_DOMAINS option to minimize
	nameserver lookups, and reduce delays that they cause.  If your
	Sendmail.mc does not support it, pick up a recent one from
	mp.cs.niu.edu:/pub/cf .

Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: workaround for 4K buffer on most sendmails
Keywords: sendmail header size
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:43:38 GMT
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In article <1992Aug19.160024.5887@dg-rtp.dg.com> monroe@stereo.rtp.dg.com (Mark A Monroe) writes:
>We've run into a problem at the EPA that involves receiving messages
>with very large "To:" fields. Agency policy is to list all the 
>recipients of a message, rather than use aliases, and some 
>distribution lists have 200+ users on them.

 The best method is to use an alias, or list the addresses on "Bcc:"
rather than "To:".  Perhaps it is agency policy to list them all on
"To:", but I would prefer to describe that as agency policy to
abuse email readers.  Most readers would rather get to the message as
soon as possible.  If you really need to include the whole list for
documentation reasons, incorporate it at the end of the message.
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: too many simultaneous connections to the same address
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:56:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.140541.24451@news.belwue.de> georgi@noc.belwue.de (Juergen Georgi) writes:
>Is there a way to limit the number of simultaneous outgoing
>sendmail connections to the same address during a queue run?
>
>Very often our mail-relay receives a large number (hundreds) 
>of mail messages with identical receipient addresses. During a 
>queue run the number of simultaneous sendmail processes connected
>to that address and hanging in the "DATA wait" state grows sometimes
>up to 150. This does't harm our mail-relay, but could drag down 

  This is under control of the 'OY' option definition.  If you have
defined the 'Y' option, try commenting out that option in sendmail.cf
(then rebuild a freeze file if used, and kill and restart the daemon).

  Without OY, sendmail should serialize queue processing.  You would
only get 150 connections if you ran the queue so often that you
had 150 concurrent queue runs.
From: kaehler@zk3.dec.com (Todd Kaehler UEG)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: Perl Package to test Sendmail.cf?
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:58:57 GMT
Reply-To: kaehler@zk3.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Aug14.002450.2473@harker.com>, harker@harker.com (Robert Harker) writes:
>
>The perl script you are looking for is called "checksendmail" written by
>Gene Kim & Rob Kolstad & Jeff Polk and is available via anonymous FTP
>from boulder.colorado.edu in /pub/sendmail/checksendmail.shar (path name
>might be wrong).
>
>check sendmail takes a list of addresses and first runs it through ruleset
>zero to determine which mailer is chosen for each address and what host and
>address gets passed to the specific mailer.  Then it passes all of the address
>through ththe sender and recipient rule sets for each mailer.  It then
>prints the results in a nice format.
>

If anyone is interested I can make available a c program I use for
checking addresses which is much like checksendmail with a few
added features.

- Checks both envelope and header addresses.  You can specify that you
want it to check the From: or To: header for a particular mailer.  

- You can specify the expected address.  This way I can setup a file
with all the addresses I want to check and the expected results
and I can have the program flag only the addresses/mailers/hosts
which do not match the expected results.

I have test files with hundreds of addresses I need to test and
this program will crank through them in less than a minute, only
reporting errors. 

Send mail if interested.  It there is enough interest I will post it
somewhere.  It is now working on ULTRIX and DEC OSF/1.
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
From: ratilal@nrcnet1.nrc.ca (Ratilal Haria)
Subject: Moving from VM/CMS - Public Domain Mailer on UNIX reqd
Organization: National Research Council of Canada
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 13:47:48 GMT

Hi,
   
   We will be moving from our IBM mainframe VM/CMS onto
   the UNIX world after 2 years. We had written application
   on the VM Mailer (Crosswell Mailer or XMailer or Columbia Mailer)
   to support our PNS (Personal Name Support).

   A user in our organization can be addressed by his
   personal name with a nodeid of NRC.CA. The PNS would
   then map this personal name address into the proper
   E-Mail address from a database containing the E-Mail
   addresses.

   To continue supporting this facility, I am seeking help
   in locating any Mail software on the UNIX platform that
   comes in source form, enabling us to modify it.

   Please reply directly.

Thanks in advance ... Ratilal

 

-- 
*------------------------------------+------------------------*
|Ratilal Haria                       | Ratilal.Haria@NRC.CA   |
|National Research Council of Canada | RRH@NRCVM01            |
|Networks Branch                     | ratilal@nrcnet0.nrc.ca |
|Rm 103A, Bld M60, Montreal Road     | Tel: (613)993-0240     |
|Ottawa, Canada  K1A 0R6             | Fax: (613) 954-2561    |
*------------------------------------+------------------------*
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail