HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: RE: trailing dot
From: "Ned Freed, Postmaster" <ned@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:23 PST
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:24 PST
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GIOC4XEKCG8WX316@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"JDECK@WILLET.WESLEYAN.EDU"
X-Vms-Cc: IPMDF

The trailing dot syntax for addresses is used by the DNS. The trailing
dot is used to block the addition of a default domain, which is done by
default to any entries in a DNS database. For example, suppose I'm setting
up the DNS for claremont.edu, and for some reason I need to refer to
willet.wesleyan.edu in an entry. If I write "willet.wesleyan.edu" this
will expand to "willet.wesleyan.edu.claremont.edu", which is probably not
what I want. If, on the other hand, I write "willet.wesleyan.edu." I'll
get just "willet.wesleyan.edu" and nothing more.

This special syntax is unique to DNS files; it is never supposed to be
used anywhere else. Unfortunately, it has since leaked out of this
limited application area via the dn_ routine interface to the name resolver
and nslookup. This has since been regretted and the dn_ routines have been
changed so they no longer paste on default domains by default. This
then caused all sorts of problems with software that expected this behavior.
nslookup, however, still does its own thing and it still accepts and
uses the trailing dot syntax. I don't think this is going to change.

Occasionally we get requests to support this syntax in PMDF. We've always
refused to do this because it is a flagrant violation of the standards.

				Ned
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: RE: sendhead keyword (again)
From: "Ned Freed, Postmaster" <ned@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:02 PST
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:03 PST
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GIOQ30QLCW8WX57N@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"robin_goldstone@macgate.csuchico.edu"
X-Vms-Cc: IPMDF

sendhead only works when messages are returned because they have been sitting
in the queue too long. It does not apply to postmaster copies generated by
SMTP delivery failures and other such stuff.

I hope to relax this restriction in a future release of PMDF, but that's the
way it is for now.

				Ned
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: Pmdf Statistics
From: Systems <uccxjps@vms.ucc.okstate.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:43 CST
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:46 PST
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GIN6ZY41ZK8WX0H5@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"info-pmdf@ymir.claremont.edu"
X-Vms-Cc: UCCXJPS

We are needing to know how many mail messages are going from our vms machine
to another site.  How is the best way to find this out?  Thanks for any insights.
-- Jim Strother
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: RE: PMDF accounting stats
From: mitchell@uthscsa.edu (Scott J. Mitchell)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:33:29 CDT
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 10:33 PST
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GIIVGOLDQO8WWJMR@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"ipmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU"
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"ipmdf@ymir.claremont.edu"

Well, on this campus we have a recession-induced mania for counting things
--CPU cycles, network bandwidth--and when the subject of e-mail comes up 
the first question I'm usually asked is "how many messages are we handling?"
This is a simple statistic that can't readily be collected from MAIL.LOG, 
at least not in a way that meaningfully reflects the resources being used,
because mail addressed to multiple recipients (or exploded locally to
large lists) is indistinguishable in the log from a series of individual 
messages.  One message with fifty recipients generates that many "dequeue"
records, even if they're all deliverable via a couple of network sessions
to other hosts.

On our homegrown channels we do logging on a per-activation basis, so we
can count actual instances of messages being processed.  This gives us a
clearer idea of how much work each of these channels is actually doing
and for whom.  I won't presume to suggest how this might be addressed
generically--I had a muddled idea of a user callback from somewhere in
the core routines which would allow customized logging, which I'm only 
too happy to give up.  It does seem to me, though, that only a process
running at the time a message is dequeued (and with knowledge of channel-
specific details like the single and single_sys flags) can generate very
useful "accounting" data.  I was curious about whether other sites had an
interest in the issue.

Scott Mitchell
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
mitchell@uthscsa.edu
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: RE: PMDF 4.0 install
From: "Ned Freed, Postmaster" <ned@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:26 PST
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:27 PST
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GIN6B7O7KG8WWZW6@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"robin_goldstone@macgate.csuchico.edu"
X-Vms-Cc: IPMDF

If you install PMDF V4.0 in a separate directory and tell it not to start up
you should be able to get by without disturbing your existing configuration.
The only problem that arises is that you must manually delete the installed
images in the old copy of PMDF prior to starting up the new one (this is
when you're ready to start it up). You are also responsible for moving all
the files from the old copy to the new one that need to be moved -- this
includes configuration files, messages in the queues, and any log files you
want to save. Getting this right can be tricky, which is why we really
recommend you install over the existing version, thus doing the upgrade "in
place".

As for MAILSERV, there is no install time option to include it. It is simply
part of the regular kit. It was part of the V3.2 kit as well; you probably
have it on your system now.

				Ned
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: RE: Interpretation of delivery failure
From: "Sue Ake (814) 863-2524" <sue@a1.psupen.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:23 EST
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:03 PST
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GIN9O3ONTC8WWQQN@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"IPMDF@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU"
Content-Type: TEXT
Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:46 EST
Importance: normal
Priority: non-urgent
X-Hop-Count: 1
A1-Type: MAIL


Ned,

>However, you seem to use PSUPENA.BITNET as your official host name on your 
>Jnet channels.

Right again!  I had bitnet_alias = "PSUPENA.BITNET".  This must be a leftover 
from when this node wasn't yet part of our cluster.  I just changed it to 
"PSUPEN.BITNET" and tried sending a message to test it. Should my bitnet_alias 
be "PSUPEN.BITNET" or nothing?  As you can see below, the message made it a 
little farther but got bounced when the sender didn't match PSUPEN SMTPUSER.

Batch SMTP transaction log follows:
 
220 CORNELLC Columbia MAILER R2.08A BSMTP service ready.
050 HELO PSUPEN.BITNET
250 CORNELLC Hello PSUPEN.BITNET
050 TICK 0001
250 0001 ... that's the ticket.
050 MAIL FROM:<SUE@A1.PSUPEN.PSU.EDU>
501-<SUE@A1.PSUPEN.PSU.EDU> does not correspond to RSCS origin of PSUPEN   SMTPU
501 SER
050 RCPT TO:<POSTMASTER@CORNELLC.BITNET>
500 Command ignored due to a previous error.
050 DATA
354 Start mail input.  End with <crlf>.<crlf>
451 Request aborted: command out of sequence
050 QUIT
221 CORNELLC Columbia MAILER BSMTP service done.
 

Next question... where did the first "received:" line below get generated?  Is 
it a problem with my configuration?

Original message follows:
 
Received: from PSUPEN.BITNET (SMTPUSER) by CORNELLC (Mailer R2.08A) with BSMTP
 id 0785; Thu, 09 Apr 92 15:52:15 EDT
Received: from MRGATE.PSUPEN.PSU.EDU by PSUPEN.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12159) id
 <01GINDGOAVG48X0SK8@PSUPEN.PSU.EDU>; Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:52 EST
Received: with PMDF-MR; Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:42 EST
  (stuff deleted)
From: vaughan@sjh.org
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: Simple question
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:02:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: St. Joseph Hospital, Cheektowaga NY

-- 
  Simple question, why doesn't pmdf put the username in lowercase?  

Told ya it was a simple question.

-- 
Internet: vaughan@sjh.ORG
UUCP    : ..!{ames!canisius,doh1c,sigmast,ub}!sjhvax!vaughan
SMSNET  : 40961::vaughan                
Where   : Tom Vaughan / Mgr. Comp. Ops./ St. Joseph Hospital /Cheektowaga N.Y.
--
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: RE: PMDF 4.0 install
From: "Daniel C. Newman" <dan@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:36 PST
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:37 PST
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GINAVJ33Q88WWY1H@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"robin_goldstone@macgate.csuchico.edu"
X-Vms-Cc: IPMDF

> I want to install PMDF 4.0 in parallel to my existing installation of PMDF 3.2.
>  According to the PMDF 4.0 documentation, section 1.4.1, I need to shut down my
> existing PMDF and preferrably my entire TCP/IP network prior to installing 4.0.
>  Is this still necessary if I am doing a parallel installation?  If I tell the
> install procedure to not run PMDF_STARTUP.COM after the installation, shouldn't
> I be able to do the install 4.0 on my running system without disrupting
> anything?

Yes, if you just install it and do not let it run PMDF_STARTUP.COM then
everything should be okay.  Things to watch out for are:

  (1) The install will overwrite your existing sys$startup:pmdf_startup.com
      file.  So, you'll want to somehow protect your 3.2 startup file from
      getting lost in the process.

  (2) Be sure that you tell the install procedure the correct UIC for your
      PMDF account (should it ask).  By correct, I mean the same UIC that
      your 3.2 PMDF account uses.  (Unfortunately, the installation procedure
      cannot determine this on its own owing to limitations in the VMSINSTAL
      environment.)

  (3) When you decide to cut over to 4.0, you're probably best off rebooting.
      There is well-known problem with VMS INSTALL that causes problems when
      you replace an installed image with another image that lives in a
      different directory tree.  You can get around this by either (a)
      rebooting, or (b) INSTALL DELETEing the 3.2 PMDF images before
      INSTALLing the 4.0 PMDF images.

> Also, how do I get MAILSERV?  I was told that it is an install-time option. 
> Where in the installation process do I specify that I want MAILSERV?

Ask for the optional, unsupported utilities (e.g., CMDF, MFTU,...).  The
MAILSERV stuff will end up in the directory PMDF_ROOT:[SRC.MAILSERV].

Dan
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: RE: Problem with generic mail channel - log inclosed
From: "Ned Freed, Postmaster" <ned@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:01 PST
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:02 PST
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GIX3R6GFOW8WXSBV@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"HAL@SNYCENVA.BITNET"
X-Vms-Cc: ipmdf

> I am using a generic mail channel to talk to WordPerfect's WPGATE gateway
> into WPOffice mail.  I have had much success doing this.  However, lately
> some mail has been bombing.
 
> Below, you will find a copy of the log file that master_debug produced.
> Could you please look at the file and tell me who's got the problem (WPGATE
> or PMDF)?  I suspect WPGATE bombing on long From: line addresses, but I'm
> not intimate enough with the PMDF code to understand the master_debug info.
 
> Once I have some details on an exact diagnosis of the problem, I can call
> WordPerfect development and have them fix it.
 
Here's the critical part of the log:

> MAIL_IN_LINE called with: 10
> IN_CKUSER option used.
> PUSH called.
>   after PUSH:
>          USER_CHECK
>             BAD_MSG
>   PMDF To: address: nicotept%wPO1p@wpo2v
>   VMS MAIL To: address: WP%WPO2V::WPO1P::NICOTEPT
> copy_vstring_to_descr called.
> String copied: "WP%WPO2V::WPO1P::NICOTEPT"
> IN_CKUSER option finished.
> MAIL_IN_LINE returning.

This indicates that PMDF was called to get an envelope To: address. It
produced one and returned to the caller (that's what the last line means; those
messages are output as the very last thing PMDF does before returning).

We immediately see:

> MAIL_IO_WRITE called.
> TOP_OF_STACK called.
>  returning      USER_CHECK
> User check.
>  got a stat: 12
> PUSH called.
>   after PUSH:
>          ERROR_MSG
>          USER_CHECK
>             BAD_MSG
> MAIL_IO_WRITE returning.

This is an access violation being signalled. It is either coming from WPGATE
or from VMS MAIL. There's no way to be sure from the PMDF side, but I'd guess
it is a WPGATE problem.

So it does look like a WPGATE problem. It is definitely not a PMDF problem.

					Ned
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: RE: Question about XMAILER.NAMES, DOMAIN.NAMES, and BITEARN.NODES
From: Gilles Rech <gilles@cism.univ-lyon1.fr>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 09:46 +0100
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:48 PST
Cc: info-pmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GIMHVRH0XC8WWMRN@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"JWMANLY@amhchn.amherst.edu"
X-Vms-Cc: IN%"info-pmdf@ymir.claremont.edu"

>:nick.AMHERST.EDU :mailer.SMTPUSER@AMHERST  BSMTP  3   :served.YES
>:site.Amherst College
>:gatemast.BITMGR@AMHERST        :interconnect.NO
>Do these look right?  Shouldn't we have ":interconnect.YES" in DOMAIN.NAMES
>since we ARE on the Internet?  If so, who do we contact about getting
>the necessary changes made?
> 
It should be ":interconnect.MX" as Internet MTA's can get Mail eXchangers for 
your domain:

multinet nslookup /type=mx amherst.edu.
Server:  LOCALHOST
Address:  127.0.0.1

Non-authoritative answer:
AMHERST.EDU	preference = 10, mail exchanger = MAIL.AMHERST.EDU
 
Sincerely,
Gilles Rech.	Universite Claude Bernard Lyon I / INSA Lyon.	France
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: Error 114 in ERR_MTCP_LOCAL_SLAVE.LOG
From: "Bill Wilder: 902 679-5577" <wilder@nsrske.agr.ca>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:45:27 EDT
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 08:46 PST
Cc: wilder@NSRSKE.AGR.CA
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GITY29PVDC8WXID3@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"INFO-PMDF@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU"
X-Vms-Cc: IN%"wilder@NSRSKE.AGR.CA"

One site is sending me the same message over and over each each
half hour. My host is not returning any mail that would
perpetuate this loop. The SMTP log (bottom) seems OK to me. For
each occurrence an ERR_MTCP_LOCAL_SLAVE.LOG files is generated
containing:

RCVD will 114 (reply)
SENT dont 114 (reply)
os_smtp_read: Returning with nothing.

It seems the sending site is not removing it's queue entry
but I would appreciate further details of the above messages.

Thanks

Bill Wilder, Computer Systems Manager     Internet: WILDER@NSRSKE.AGR.CA
Research Station, Agriculture Canada
Kentville, Nova Scotia CANADA             Phone:    (902) 679-5577
B4N 1J5                                   Fax:      (902) 679-2311
===========================================================================
Contents of MTCP_LOCAL_SLAVE.LOG
===========================================================================
Sending    : "220 GW.AGR.CA -- Server SMTP (PMDF#12190 V4.0)".
Received   : "Helo HPB.HWC.CA".
Sending    : "250 GW.AGR.CA".
Received   : "MAIL FROM:<JSTALKER@HPB.HWC.CA>".
Sending    : "250 Address OK.".
Received   : "RCPT TO:<WILDER@NSRSKE.AGR.CA>".
Sending    : "250 WILDER@NSRSKE.AGR.CA OK.".
Received   : "DATA".
Sending    : "354 Enter mail, end with a single ".".".
Received      : ... 19 lines message body... 
Sending    : "250 Ok.".
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: PMDF 4.0 install
From: Robin Goldstone <robin_goldstone@macgate.csuchico.edu>
Date: 9 Apr 92 09:29:51 U
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 09:51 PST
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GIN0UZ05O08WWOCJ@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"ipmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU"

Hi,

I want to install PMDF 4.0 in parallel to my existing installation of PMDF 3.2.
 According to the PMDF 4.0 documentation, section 1.4.1, I need to shut down my
existing PMDF and preferrably my entire TCP/IP network prior to installing 4.0.
 Is this still necessary if I am doing a parallel installation?  If I tell the
install procedure to not run PMDF_STARTUP.COM after the installation, shouldn't
I be able to do the install 4.0 on my running system without disrupting
anything?

Also, how do I get MAILSERV?  I was told that it is an install-time option. 
Where in the installation process do I specify that I want MAILSERV?

Thanks,
Robin Goldstone, CSU Chico
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
From: berman@williams.EDU (Mark Berman)
Subject: Rule matching left of the '@'
Reply-To: Mark.Berman@williams.edu
Organization: Williams College
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:15:00 GMT


This may be a wierd question, but is there any way to to rule matching in the username section of the destination address. We have a situation where all of out internet mail routing is handled by a unix box to which PMDF sends all out outbound mail and from which it receives most inbound. The exception is BITNET mail which comes directly to our VAX via an IP encapsulated JNET link. We are currently advertising addressing of the form firstname.lastname@Williams.EDU for Internet addressing and are running in




to situations where people will try to use that form from BITNET. Worse than that, we have run into at least one situation where the foreign mailer, smoehow realizing that Williams was on the BITNET remapped Williams.EDU to Williams.BITNET.

A solution to this would be to parse the "." on the left of the "@" and send  the message to our primary mail router for delivery. We really don't want to enter all the aliasing to translate first.last to username in two locations.

Any advice?

	Mark Berman
	Director of Technical Services
	Williams College

	Mark.Berman@Williams.EDU (at least as long as you're not sending BITNET)
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: PMDF.CNF for a 2node hetero cluster.
From: "A. Mahendra Rajah, System Manager" <mahendra@meena.cc.uregina.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:00 -0600
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:04 PST
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GIJ2TJ44CW8WWKL6@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"INFO-PMDF@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU"
X-Vms-Cc: MAHENDRA

From:	MEENA::MAHENDRA     "A. Mahendra Rajah, System Manager"  5-APR-1992 15:24:36.62
To:	IN%"SERVICE@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU"
CC:	MAHENDRA
Subj:	PMDF.CNF for a 2node hetero cluster.

Hello:

   We now have the licenses to run PMDF on two nodes (say A and B) of our
   cluster. Since the SYSUAF and VMSMAIL_PROFILE_DATA files reside in
   each node's Sys$specific directory, these are heterogeneous clusters,
   right?? Node A runs Jnet and has Mail$Batch executing in it. Node B
   is not licensed for Jnet. Both nodes are on Internet running
   MultiNet.

   Now, I want to

   (1)  run just one copy of PMDF, and
   (2)  allow user's on node B to use the IN% contruct to send and
        receive Internet/Bitnet mail,

   Should I be using TWO different PMDF.CNF files, one for each node, so
   that I can specify the right name for the local host on the L
   channel?? Is there a better way - must be - but my finicky brain
   cannot see it through. Please help.

   Thanks.
        
   -- mahendra (A. Mahendra Rajah :: Mahendra @ Meena.CC.URegina.CA)
      System Manager, Dept of Computing Services, University of Regina,
      Regina, Sask., Canada.
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: Interpretation of delivery failure
From: "Sue Ake (814) 863-2524" <sue@a1.psupen.psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 08:23 EST
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 05:43 PST
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GIJZLWI3408WWHZY@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"IPMDF@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU"
Content-Type: TEXT
Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 08:34 EST
Importance: normal
Priority: non-urgent
X-Hop-Count: 1
A1-Type: MAIL


Hi!  I'm running PMDF 4.0.  I received the following delivery failure but I'm 
having difficulty deciding what (or who) is causing the problem.  I have a 
mailer registered (MAILER, not SMTPUSER).  Any help would be appreciated since 
it appears that the originator of the message is not being told that his 
message didn't make it.

Here's the failure notice:

(( Electronic Mail ))

                                      Date:    06-Apr-1992 09:13am EST
                                      From:     
                                      Dept:     
                                      Tel No:   
                                      Fax No:   

TO:  Postmaster@PEMBVAX1.BITNET@PMDFGATE@PENA
TO:  postmaster@PSUPEN.PSU.EDU@PMDFGATE@PENA
Total Recipients: 2

Subject: Undeliverable mail: local delivery failure

The message could not be delivered to:

Addressee: SMTPUSER
Reason: 
  %MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user SMTPUSER at node PENA

----------------------------------------

Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by PSUPEN.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12159) id
 <01GIISNTMPLO90MT7D@PSUPEN.PSU.EDU>; Mon, 6 Apr 1992 09:13 EST
Received: From PEMBVAX1(MAILER) by PSUPENB with Jnet id 7430 for
 SMTPUSER@PSUPEN; Mon,  6 Apr 1992 09:13 EST
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 09:12:34 EDT
From: Message Exchange Jnet Interface <Postmaster@PEMBVAX1.BITNET>
Subject: Error in BSMTP message proccessing
To: SMTPUSER@PSUPEN.PSU.EDU
Message-id: <01GIISNTMPLO90MT7D@PSUPEN.PSU.EDU>

BSMTP transcript:
 
220 PEMBVAX1.BITNET MX MX V2.3-1 SMTP server ready at Mon, 06 Apr 1992 09:12:34
EDT
050 HELO PSUPENA.BITNET
250 Hello, PSUPENA.BITNET
050 TICK 0001
250 OK
050 MAIL FROM:<DSUCHANIC@A1.PSUPEN.PSU.EDU>
250 MAIL command accepted.
050 RCPT TO:<ANGELA@PEMBVAX1.BITNET>
250 Recipient okay (at least in form)
050 DATA
354 Start mail input; end with <crlf>.<crlf>
050 Received: from MRGATE.PSUPEN.PSU.EDU by PSUPEN.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12159) id
050  <01GIISL569I48X0FXT@PSUPEN.PSU.EDU>; Mon, 6 Apr 1992 09:10 EST
050 Received: with PMDF-MR; Mon, 6 Apr 1992 09:05 EST
050 Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 08:54 EST
050 From: Dave Suchanic <DSUCHANIC@A1.PSUPEN.PSU.EDU>
050 Subject: RE: Errands?
050 To: ANGELA@PEMBVAX1.BITNET
050 Message-id: <01GIISL569I48X0FXT@PSUPEN.PSU.EDU>
050 X-Envelope-to: ANGELA@PEMBVAX1.BITNET
050 Content-type: TEXT
050 Posting-date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 08:59 EST
050 Importance: normal
050 Priority: non-urgent
050 X-Hop-count: 1
050 A1-type: MAIL
050
050	Message text removed!
050 .
554 Fail: Mailer not registered in my table.
---- Rest of BSMTP input follows ----
QUIT
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: RE: Simple question
From: "Daniel C. Newman" <dan@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:26 PST
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:27 PST
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GIOV2MXC348WX6MH@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"vaughan@sjh.org"
X-Vms-Cc: IPMDF

>  Simple question, why doesn't pmdf put the username in lowercase?

PMDF is very careful to not change the case of addresses presented to it. Note,
however, that site-supplied rewrite rules, in the process of canonocalizing
addresses, may alter domain names in addresses but never alter the local part
of an address short of replacing it entirely as in the case of an alias
expansion. I suspect that you're seeing VMS MAIL (or some other interface) put
things into uppercase before handing them off to PMDF or after receiving them
from PMDF.  And, of course, when VMS MAIL gives your username as a From:
address in mail you send, VMS MAIL gives your username in uppercase.

Dan