HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "Bob Johns, (604)363-6520" <bob@ccs.ios.bc.ca>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: RE: Is there a point to MINE with VMS Mail
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:49:56 PDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

My users would certainly like a standardized method of exchaning binary
files with other users.  Hopefully, with time, more and more systems will
support X.400, thereby adhering to a formal specification for binary
attachments.

Since most of my users access Email from their PC's, they naturally want
to be able to exchange word processing documents, spreadsheets, and .exe's.
VMSmail's "send/foreign" just isn't good enough, partly because it is not
supported by Digital (undocumented) and partly because it isn't even
compatible with their own Pathworks mail binary attachment capability!

So maybe MIME is the way to go.  I have picked up the relevant RFC's, so
will have a closer look to understand this issue better.

As far as PMDF is concerned, it does claim to support MIME.  I was curious
to find out more about it, so contacted them for info.  What I have they
sent by FAX, but they also have an Email address ("sales@innosoft.com")
in case those asking about it wanted more direct feedback.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bob Johns                               |                            |
| Manager, Central Systems & Networks     |   Internet:  bob@ios.bc.ca |
| Scientific Computing                    |                            |
| Institute of Ocean Sciences             |   Tel     :  (604)363-6520 |
| 9860 West Saanich Rd., Sidney, B.C.     |   FAX     :  (604)363-6390 |
| Canada  V8L 4B2                         |                            |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: munroe@dmc.com (Dick Munroe)
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Does file server accounting exist?
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:03:34 EDT
Organization: Doyle, Munroe Consultants, Inc., Hudson, MA

Is it possible to get accounting information from file/mailing list servers?  I
can find the the local delivery agent can do accounting, but I'ld really like
to keep track of the traffic in and out of the file servers.
-- 
Dick Munroe				Internet: munroe@dmc.com
Doyle Munroe Consultants, Inc.		UUCP: ...uunet!thehulk!munroe
267 Cox St.				Office: (508) 568-1618
Hudson, Ma.				FAX: (508) 562-1133

GET CONNECTED!!! Send mail to info@dmc.com to find out about DMConnection.
From: munroe@dmc.com (Dick Munroe)
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Problem with MLF and embedded <CR>s
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:16:13 EDT
Organization: Doyle, Munroe Consultants, Inc., Hudson, MA

I've run into a mailer out there that insists on embedding a carriage return at
the end of each line that it send.  This blows the SEND functionality for the
file servers, e.g.,

SEND FOO

And when the file server tries to parse this for a matching directory, it
doesn't work.  I have two questions:

1. Is the embedding of the CR reasonable? (I think not, but I'm not THAT
conversant with RFC822).

2. Could MX be rigged to filter out control characters in the file server
processing?

Dick Munroe
-- 
Dick Munroe				Internet: munroe@dmc.com
Doyle Munroe Consultants, Inc.		UUCP: ...uunet!thehulk!munroe
267 Cox St.				Office: (508) 568-1618
Hudson, Ma.				FAX: (508) 562-1133

GET CONNECTED!!! Send mail to info@dmc.com to find out about DMConnection.
From: Irv Eisen <irv@ccstat.mc.duke.edu>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: re: Misconfigured UCX?
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 11:38:57 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

<>OK.  How do I get the domain expander to not translate IMG.UMD.EDU to img?  I
<>don't have access to the UCX manuals (I'm in California, and I'm installing MX
<>on a machine in Maryland, and the local computing center doesn't have the UCX
<>documentation on CDROM).  So I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me
 either:
<>        1)  How to get MX not to run the domain expander; or better
<>        2)  How to reconfigure UCX's hosts database so that it uses the FQDN
<>            as the primary name of the system.
<>Please give explicit instructions if you're answering question 2.  Thanks.

Answer to question 1:

You can turn off the domain expander by renaming
MX_EXE:DOMAIN_EXPANSION.EXE, deassigning MX_SITE_DOM_EXPANSION and
restarting the Router.

=========================================================================
| Irv Eisen, Systems Manager      Bitnet  : EISEN001@DUKEMC             |
| Cancer Center                   Internet: IRV@CCSTAT.MC.DUKE.EDU      |
| Box 3958                                                              |
| Duke University Medical Center  Voice   : (919) 286-7774              |
| Durham, NC 27710                Fax     : (919) 286-3956              |
=========================================================================
From: Hunter Goatley <goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Is there a point to MIME with VMS Mail?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 13:05:06 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

I picked up the RFCs for MIME last weekend.  MIME stands for
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions and it describes an encoding
system for mail messages so that binaries, images, etc., can be sent
through normal Internet mail.

I read through the document with an eye toward making MX
MIME-compliant sometime down the road (not anytime soon, mind you!!).
After reading the document, I have one major question: why?

Let me be more specific: I understand the purpose behind MIME, and
agree that it sounds nice.  However, if your primary interface is VMS
Mail (as I imagine is true on the MX list), most of MIME's features
are meaningless.  The simple encoding of some binary characters makes
sense, but most of the MIME stuff is geared toward your being able to
send, for example, three copies of a document in a single mail
message: a text file, a PostScript file, and a DVI file, say.  A
MIME-compliant mailer will present the user only with what he can
handle, which, in the case of VMS Mail, would be only the text file
(or the PS file if you use DECwindows mail).  Other than the
automatic stripping out of everything else, I don't see much advantage
to claiming MIME compliance.

Has anybody else read the RFC?  Do you have any thoughts about it?
Let me repeat that I'm just speaking hupothetically here---it'll be a
while before I even try to add MIME to MX, if I ever do.  But PMDF has
it (which makes sense, since Ned Freed co-authored the MIME RFC), so
I can see somebody claiming they need it in MX....

Hunter, who hopes he hasn't created a monster by bringing this up
------
Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University
goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251
From: Hunter Goatley <goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: RE: Does file server accounting exist?
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 08:56:00 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

<munroe@dmc.com> writes:
>
>Is it possible to get accounting information from file/mailing list servers? I
>can find the the local delivery agent can do accounting, but I'ld really like
>to keep track of the traffic in and out of the file servers.
>--
MX should already be keeping a log of all files sent by the file
server.  You can find it in MX_MLF_DIR:FILESERV_LOG.LOG.  If I
remember correctly, it's not controlled by an MCP command or a
logical, though it probably should be.

Incoming files are not tracked, but since every incoming message
should generate at least a transaction log, you can get a list of
everybody using it.

Hunter
------
Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University
goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Re: MX and match mail
From: tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 09:18:28 CST
Reply-To: tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot)
Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA
Nntp-Posting-User: tp


In article <0095EED7.0EAA2A20.768@kpy.com>, pedersen@kpy.com (Bill Pedersen, KPY
Corp) writes:
>In Message-ID: <1992Aug5.090755@mccall.com>,
>Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>answers (G. Del Merritt):
>
>>>  That's precisely what it'd be. You can even define a logical
>>>  name so that they can continue to use "uucp%", either as a
>>>  transition aid, or permanently.
>
>But if one wants to keep the NICE features of DECUS UUCP to
>handle mail with "smart hosts" and UUCP style addressing
>MAKE SURE you keep using uucp% and the REAL uucp foreign
>mail protocol for OUTBOUND mail from VMS MAIL users.  MX
>does not understand these features.

Since MX uses UUCP to do the sending, smart hosts are still available, as they
are used transparently. If the address is handed to uucp, and uucp can't resolve
it, it should send it to the smart host, whether the address came from MX or a
user. 

This assumes, of course, that your MX path definitions allow the addresses to
get to UUCP, but that is really another matter. At a non-internet uucp site,
virtually everything will be handed directly to uucp, and it should process the
addresses just like it does when you use uu%.

As for uucp-style addressing, I was wondering about that. I actually didn't
define the logical name, so I can use uucp% on those rare occasions that I need
to use a bang path, or if I want to bypass MX for whatever reason (like if it
breaks). But I only have 2 users (including me) so there isn't much of a
transition to worry about. 

I suppose you could define uucp% to use MX to ease the transition, and define
something else to use uucp directly as an escape feature, but that would be a
bit weird.
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA
From: robbie@winkle.bhpese.oz.au
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Default MX transport problem
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:53:42 +1000
Organization: BHP Information Technology, Newcastle

Howdy!

I recently saw an article which described a way of setting MX as the default
mail transport (namely SET TRANSPORT MX%) which works fine. I can mail
to people on my local host and ...whoa... it uses the MX transport. Very
nice. However, now when I want to mail to my unix buddies, I get strange
behaviour from mail. The following example best describes it.

MAIL> SEND
To:     "russell@cerberus"

MAIL> ! Hey, I haven't finished yet...
MAIL> ! Let's try something else...
MAIL> SEND
To:     MX%"russell@cerberus"
CC:     <Rest of stuff deleted. Take it from me, it works fine!>

Why can't I leave off the MX% when mailing to a remote host. If I
can only use the transport for the local host then I don't think it
will be all that useful.

We are running MX V3.1C and VMS V5.4-2.

        aTdHvAaNnKcSe
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Spencer, BHP Information Technology           |   Sorry, but my .sig
Newcastle, Australia        Voice: +61 49 40 1673 |   is on .sig leave!
Bits: robbie@winkle.bhpese.oz.au                  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425"
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Delivering DECnet mail
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 16:36:27 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

Two questions.  Please answer each.

I know that MX will deliver SMTP mail using DECnet.  Can it also deliver DECnet
mail to another node?  In other words, suppose I have MX running on node A and I
want to send mail to node B by addressing it to MX%"smith@b".  Do I need MX
running on B as well, or can MX turn the address into B::SMITH somehow?  If it
can, is there some general means I can use to tell MX to do this, as opposed to
having to specify a route for every single node in my DECnetwork?

Now, suppose I do have MX running on node B.  I know I can specify a route such
that MX%"smith@b.dnet" will go throught the SMTP over DECnet path, but what
about, again, MX%"smith@b"?  Can I get MX to realize this should be delivered
via DECnet_SMTP?

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 Brian Tillman               | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com
 Smiths Industries, Inc.     |
 4141 Eastern Ave. MS129     | Hey, I said this stuff myself.
 Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 | My company has no part in it.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------
From: CCAB@Augie.MHS.CompuServe.COM (Andy Barcus)
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Trouble with configuration of MX....
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:22:53 GMT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List


I am not a VMS person, but I am attempting to get MX working on our
systems here.  We have three vaxes, a Sun workstation, and a gateway to
an E-Mail program on our Novell file server.  We will be connected to
the Internet (sometime next week), and I'd like to get MX running.
I hope to run MX only on one Vax, but I'm not sure that is possible, or
even the best thing.

One problem I had is that when sending mail to the Sun, the reply-to
address was wrong.  In trying to fix that, I completly stopped mail
from going altogether... I'm baffled....

If you are willing to answer some (perhaps fundamental) questions about
my attempt to install MX, please drop me a line.  I'd like to speak to
someone in person, so please include your telephone number.

Thanks,

++ Andy Barcus ++
   Network Manager
     Augustana College
       Rock Island, IL
         309 794 7209
From: goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (Hunter Goatley)
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: MXSUM bug found and fixed
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:22:29 GMT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

I have found and fixed a bug in MXSUM, an MX [.CONTRIB] program that
generates summary reports from the SMTP, LOCAL, and JNET accounting
files.  MXSUM was written by Harold McKee, a former student who worked
for me.  The bug was that the total number of files sent was
maintained in a byte---which wasn't big enough for large numbers of
messages.  I changed the byte to a longword and cleaned up the code a
little bit.

You can get the latest version of MXSUM via anonymous ftp from
ftp.spc.edu; you'll need [.MX.CONTRIB]MXSUM.VMS_SHARE.

You can also get MXSUM via e-mail by sending the command SEND MXSUM in
the body of a mail message to FILESERV@WKUVX1.BITNET.

Hunter
------
Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University
goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251
From: ake@dayton.saic.com (Earle Ake)
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Problem with MX 3.1C and truncated header lines
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:47:08 GMT
Organization: Science Applications Intl. Corp., Dayton, Ohio


	There seems to be a problem in MX 3.1C where a message that has header
lines (and possibly lines in the text) longer than 80 or so characters are
truncated.  The header lines are correct as the SMTP agent receives them
but looking at them in the flq_dir directory, they are truncated.  This
has caused some problems with other mail systems that don't properly wrap
headers.


Earle
_____________________________________________________________________________
             ____ ____    ___
Earle Ake   /___ /___/ / /     Science Applications International Corporation
           ____//   / / /__                 Dayton, Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: ake@dayton.saic.com  uucp: dayvb!ake  NSI-DECnet (SPAN): 28284::ake
From: Rick Westerman <westerm@bchm1.aclcb.purdue.edu>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: RE: Is there a point to MIME with VMS Mail?
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:43:01 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

> Is there a point to MIME with VMS Mail?

> A MIME-compliant mailer will present the user ... [with] the text file
> or the PS file if you use DECwindows mail.

This by itself seems handy. Being able to see a postscript component
of mail would be, in the future, very nice. Additionally, perhaps DECwindows
mail will be upgraded someday to handle sound, so it would nice for MX to
handle it as well.

> But PMDF has [MIME] ...

So what does PMDF do with the MIME stuff? They must see a need for it
even if plain old VMS mail doesn't handle non-text. I admit I'm not
familiar with PMDF, do they have their own mail interface?

-- Rick

Rick Westerman                System Manager of the AIDS Center Laboratory
westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu      for Computational Biochemistry (ACLCB), BCHM
(317) 494-0505                bldg., Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907

  Headline seen on a SUN tabloid: "AIDS killing the world's vampires!"
  And all this time I thought HIV wasn't good for anything except providing
  me with a job.   :-)
From: Mighty Firebreather <dragon@nscvax.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: RE: Misconfigured UCX?
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 23:35:55 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

        Carl,

        I believe you've bumped into a known problem with UCX.  The
documentation suggests that the hosts file be set up with alias first and then
the FQDN.  You need to set up the hosts file so that the FQDN is first, followed
by any aliases.

*************************************************************************
*                                                                       *
*                        Here, there be dragons!                        *
*                      dragon@nscvax.princeton.edu                      *
*                                                                       *
*                                                Richard B. Gilbert     *
*************************************************************************
From: "Russell O. Redman" <redman@hiaras.hia.nrc.ca>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: RE: Is there a point to MIME with VMS Mail?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 10:24:11 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

I have not read the MIME specification, but the ability to send binary data by
e-mail sounds valuable to me. We often face the problem of distributing binary
data to our clients. The data is confidential, but does not really require high
security. Sending it by e-mail would be exactly right, especially since the
datasets are generally quite small. Giving all these people access to our disks
through FTP is a lot more work and a lot less secure, both for us and for them.
I would cheerfully abandon the VMS mail interface if an alternative was
available which was
 1) cheap,
 2) reliable,
 3) fully MIME compliant,
 4) loaded with features... ;-).
Cheers,
Russell O. Redman
From: goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET (Hunter Goatley)
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: RE: Problem with MX 3.1C and truncated header lines
Date: 19 Aug 92 11:48:54 GMT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

<ake@dayton.saic.com> writes:
>
>       There seems to be a problem in MX 3.1C where a message that has header
>lines (and possibly lines in the text) longer than 80 or so characters are
>truncated.  The header lines are correct as the SMTP agent receives them
>but looking at them in the flq_dir directory, they are truncated.  This
>has caused some problems with other mail systems that don't properly wrap
>headers.
>
Yes, I've found this too.  Matt said something once about there being
an RFC or part of an RFC that deals with this situation, but he didn't
implement it.  If I can find it, I'll try to make that a high priority
when I start my MX work (most notably because it has affected a couple
of my own mailing lists! 8-)).

Hunter
------
Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University
goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251
From: Hunter Goatley <goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Summary: Is there a point to MIME?
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 12:45:36 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

Thanks for everyone's input.  I had forgotten about MAIL/FOREIGN (in
fact, I never even tried it until now).

Thomas Richter sums up my thoughts when read the MIME RFC:
>
>As I see it, MX is made for routing and providing the
>transport.  It shouldn't touch the message itself to hide deficiencies
>in the user agent.
>
That's exactly what was going through my mind after reading it, though
I agree that it has some useful purpose through MAIL/FOREIGN.

As I said before, don't expect MX to include anything MIME-related for
quite some time, if ever.

Hunter
------
Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University
goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251
From: munroe@dmc.com (Dick Munroe)
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Problems with MX SITE/UUCP Processes
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:18:40 EDT
Organization: Doyle, Munroe Consultants, Inc., Hudson, MA

Has anybody seen the MX->UUCP and/or the MX->SITE processes go compute bound
and use up 100% of the CPU forever?  I've had this happen several times in the
last few days (this is the FIRST time it's happened) and the only significant
difference to my way of doing business is I've gone to the default queue purge
and reclaim times.  I installed MX3.1C several weeks ago and haven't had any
problems until just the last few days.

I've just turned on debugging in the hopes that something will turn up.  Is
there anything else that I can do to get more information once the problem
comes up again?
-- 
Dick Munroe				Internet: munroe@dmc.com
Doyle Munroe Consultants, Inc.		UUCP: ...uunet!thehulk!munroe
267 Cox St.				Office: (508) 568-1618
Hudson, Ma.				FAX: (508) 562-1133

GET CONNECTED!!! Send mail to info@dmc.com to find out about DMConnection.
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
From: gwlester@cpu.com (Gerald W. Lester)
Subject: Re: MX and match mail
Organization: Computerized Processes Unlimited, Metairie, LA, (504)-889-2784
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:43:36 GMT
Reply-To: gwlester@cpu.com

In article <1992Aug12.091828@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com (Terry Poot) writes:
>
>In article <0095EED7.0EAA2A20.768@kpy.com>, pedersen@kpy.com (Bill Pedersen, KPY
>Corp) writes:
>
>As for uucp-style addressing, I was wondering about that. I actually didn't
>define the logical name, so I can use uucp% on those rare occasions that I need
>to use a bang path, or if I want to bypass MX for whatever reason (like if it
>breaks). But I only have 2 users (including me) so there isn't much of a
>transition to worry about. 
>

Terry,

	MX can handle bang paths, I use them all of the time.
From: "Brian Tillman, Smiths Industries, VAX Support, x8425"
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: RE: Summary: Problems printing POSTSCRIPT using LPR.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:22:26 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

J.C. Higgins, Sys Admin (CHRIS@csvax1.ucc.ie) writes:

>Many postscript files have very large record lengths, so all you need to do
>is define a new FORM which has a large line width, and everything should be
>rosy.
>
>$DEFINE/FORM <name> <num> /NOTRUNCATE /WIDTH=32000 /DESC="Special PS Wide Form"

No need to do anything with the /WIDTH qualifier, provided you nave
/NOTRUNCATE/NOWRAP defined for the form.

-----------------------------+--------------------------------
 Brian Tillman               | Internet: tillman@swdev.si.com
 Smiths Industries, Inc.     |
 4141 Eastern Ave. MS129     | Hey, I said this stuff myself.
 Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 | My company has no part in it.
-----------------------------+--------------------------------