HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: RE: Username Lengths-Looking for an Explanation
From: Hunter Goatley <goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:39:20 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

"James F. Burnett--University of Texas-PanAm" <burnett@PANAM.BITNET> writes:
>
>We created a new user with a 9 character username.  That user logged
>in and subscribed to a couple of mailing lists(both very active lists)
>and began receiving mail--well, almost began receiving mail.  The mail
>reached here just fine, but somewhere along the route, the username
>was truncated to 8 characters.  MX attempted to find the truncated
>username here, was unable to do so, generated an error reply, and sent
>it back where it came from.
>
[...]
>I need an explanation of why this is happening.  Is it related to
>BITNET, INTERNET, MX, all of the above, none of the above, or
>what ?

It's a BITNET problem.  More specifically, it's a problem with the
mailer that sent the messages out.  Or else it's really your problem!
8-)

The mailer serving those lists sent you a regular Jnet file, not a
BSMTP message.  That can happen when:

   a)  the other mailer doesn't handle BSMTP
   b)  the other mailer's copy of XMAILER.NAMES is out-of-date
   c)  your entry in XMAILER.NAMES doesn't indicate that you are
       BSMTP-compatible

For regular Jnet files, the usernames get truncated to 8 characters.
That's the part that makes it a BITNET problem.  The solution: make
sure your entry is OK in XMAILER.NAMES, then, if it is, perhaps
contact the postmaster at the remote node and (gently?) ask if they
are up-to-date on XMAILER.NAMES.

>I've been aware for quite some time that the length of the
>POSTMAST(ER) account has been an issue but never had thought of it in
>terms of other usernames.  Is there a more convenient way to deal with
>the problem than having to remember to limit usernames to 8 or less
>characters or defining aliases ?  After all, VMS allows 12 character
>usernames.
>
I've kept the limit to 8 (with the exception of my own---and I have an
alias set up).

>I noticed in earlier postings that someone had suggested sending
>bounced mail messages to the local postmaster also.  I think that's
>an excellent idea and am glad Hunter has agreed.  I only have time
>to look at MX occassionally and wouldn't have even noticed this
>problem if another user hadn't called me concerning another potential
>problem with MX.  I manage to log into the POSTMASTER account about
>once a day.
>
POSTMASTER doesn't have to be a real account---you can set up a
forwarding address for it in mail using SET FORWARD/USER=POSTMAST(ER)
or define an alias in MCP for POSTMASTER.

Hunter
------
Hunter Goatley, VMS Systems Programmer, Western Kentucky University
goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET, 502-745-5251
From: hunterl@uwwvax.uww.edu
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: NOREPRO feature on MLF
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:48:31 GMT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

Can the option NOREPRO be set globally for a given list?
Preferably when defining the list.

Lyle Hunter
Computer Center
University Wisconsin-Whitewater
hunterl@uwwvax.uww.edu
From: "J.C. Higgins, Sys Mgr CsVax1, UCC , Eire" <chris@CSVAX1.UCC.IE>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Trapping bounced mail.
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 20:34:39 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

Hi,
Is there any way that I can have a copy of mail that is to be 'bounced'
back to the sender sent to the POSTMASTER.

Is there anything 'special' about the address that is used to return the
bounced message.. because if there is something unique about it, then
I could try a rewrite rule to send it to a site procedure that would
send it to the real user, and a copy to the postmaster....

If it is not possible, then what are the chances of having the option
in the next version.. (You reading this Hunter and Matt  :)


                                                  Chris.

+ J.C. Higgins, Sys Admin  +  If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't
+ CHRIS@csvax1.ucc.ie      +  come back to you, hunt it down and KILL it. If
+ SCCS6002@iruccvax.ucc.ie +  that doesn't work, then GIVE UP peacefully.
From: wilton@hg.uleth.ca (Russ Wilton, Systems Manager)
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: MX hangs if FLQ_DIR is unavailable
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:07:09 GMT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

Hi:
  I run MX on a mixed interconnect cluster with three timeshared nodes and
a bunch of workstations.  VMS 5.5-1 and MX 3.0A.  To get the file traffic
associated with FLQ_DIR off our HSC and shared disk, I moved the ROUTER,
LOCAL and MLF processes to a workstation and put the FLQ_DIR on the
workstation's attached disk.  This works quite well and seems to put a
minimal load on the workstation - it's disk doesn't have anything else on
it except page and swap files.  Now for the problem. :-)
  When the work station is down for any reason, the FLQ_DIR is unavailable
to the other nodes.  Users on the other nodes trying to send mail have their
process hang immediately after entering an MX%"..." type address.  And the
process is well and truely hung - it does not respond to ^C or ^Y.
  It would be a lot more friendly to have the MX mailshr processes detect
the fact that the FLQ_DIR is not available and just give the users a message
saying that MX Mail is not currently available.  Please consider this as
a suggested improvement for the next version.  If this is alerady fixed
in MX 3.1 please ignore the above - I'll be going to 3.1C in the near future.

Russ.


  #===============================================================#
  # Russell D Wilton                   E Mail: WILTON@HG.ULeth.CA #
  # Systems and Comm Manager           Voice:      (403) 329-2525 #
  # Computing Services                 FAX:        (403) 329-2022 #
  # University of Lethbridge                                      #
  # 4401 University Drive   Lethbridge, Alberta, CANADA   T1K 3M4 #
  #===============================================================#
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Username Lengths-Looking for an Explanation
From: "James F. Burnett--University of Texas-PanAm" <burnett@PANAM.BITNET>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:20:31 CDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

Hello,

     Yesterday, something unusual happened here that I need to find an
explanation for, both for my own sake and that of others I will need
to explain it to.  I'm posting to this list since MX, BITNET, and
INTERNET are closely interrelated and I'm not sure wherein lie the
origins of the problem.

We created a new user with a 9 character username.  That user logged
in and subscribed to a couple of mailing lists(both very active lists)
and began receiving mail--well, almost began receiving mail.  The mail
reached here just fine, but somewhere along the route, the username
was truncated to 8 characters.  MX attempted to find the truncated
username here, was unable to do so, generated an error reply, and sent
it back where it came from.

I fixed the problem by defining an alias for that user but began
wondering/thinking about how many other usernames we have that are
8+ characters long and about the poor soul who replaces me when I decide
to leave here who generates 1000 student usernames one semester that
are each 10 characters long.  WOW !

I need an explanation of why this is happening.  Is it related to
BITNET, INTERNET, MX, all of the above, none of the above, or
what ?  I've been aware for quite some time that the length of the
POSTMAST(ER) account has been an issue but never had thought of it in
terms of other usernames.  Is there a more convenient way to deal with
the problem than having to remember to limit usernames to 8 or less
characters or defining aliases ?  After all, VMS allows 12 character
usernames.

I noticed in earlier postings that someone had suggested sending
bounced mail messages to the local postmaster also.  I think that's
an excellent idea and am glad Hunter has agreed.  I only have time
to look at MX occassionally and wouldn't have even noticed this
problem if another user hadn't called me concerning another potential
problem with MX.  I manage to log into the POSTMASTER account about
once a day.


--

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+  James F. Burnett                     INTERNET:   BURNETT@PANAM.EDU      +
+  Systems Programmer I                 BITNET  :   BURNETT@PANAM.BITNET   +
+  University of Texas-Pan American     Edinburg, TX (512)381-2561         +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: chris@CSVAX1.UCC.IE (J.C. Higgins, Sys Mgr CsVax1, UCC , Eire)
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: RE: Trapping bounced mail.
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:19:06 GMT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List


In a previous article, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU wrote:
>Subject: RE: Trapping bounced mail.
>
>In article <00960654.3C37AE60.13396@WKUVX1.BITNET>, Hunter Goatley
> <goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET> writes:
>>"J.C. Higgins, Sys Mgr CsVax1, UCC , Eire" <chris@CSVAX1.UCC.IE> writes:
>>>
>>>Is there any way that I can have a copy of mail that is to be 'bounced'
>>>back to the sender sent to the POSTMASTER.
>>>
>>Currently, there's not....
>>
>I think that having the ability to have a copy of the HEADERS of all bounced
>mail forwarded to the POSTMASTER would be a nice feature.  However, I don't
>think the body of the message need be forwarded as well.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   -
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>

No, I think that it would be better to have the whole message forwarded to
the POSTMASTER. I know that brings in some ethical problems, (reading
someone elses mail), but if the mail was bounced because the sender made
some sort of obvious typo on the destination address then the POSTMASTER
would be able to forward the message to the user. Or take the case where the
message is notification to an account that has been removed from the system,
that it has been unsubscribed from a mailing list. Wouldn't it be nice for
the POSTMASTER to be able to see that the account has been unsubscribed, and
not have to manually unsubcribe the account. (Which has been already removed
from the list).

                                                  Chris.

+ J.C. Higgins, Sys Admin  +  If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't
+ CHRIS@csvax1.ucc.ie      +  come back to you, hunt it down and KILL it. If
+ SCCS6002@iruccvax.ucc.ie +  that doesn't work, then GIVE UP peacefully.
From: Hunter Goatley <goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: RE: MX hangs if FLQ_DIR is unavailable
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 08:44:01 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

"Russ Wilton, Systems Manager" <wilton@hg.uleth.ca> writes:
>
>  I run MX on a mixed interconnect cluster with three timeshared nodes and
>a bunch of workstations.  VMS 5.5-1 and MX 3.0A.  To get the file traffic
>associated with FLQ_DIR off our HSC and shared disk, I moved the ROUTER,
>LOCAL and MLF processes to a workstation and put the FLQ_DIR on the
>workstation's attached disk.
[...]
>  When the work station is down for any reason, the FLQ_DIR is unavailable
>to the other nodes.  Users on the other nodes trying to send mail have their
>process hang immediately after entering an MX%"..." type address.  And the
>process is well and truely hung - it does not respond to ^C or ^Y.
>  It would be a lot more friendly to have the MX mailshr processes detect
>the fact that the FLQ_DIR is not available and just give the users a message
>saying that MX Mail is not currently available.  Please consider this as
>a suggested improvement for the next version.
[...]

I've added this to the wish list.

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: Re: FILESERV Transaction Logs
Date: 5 Sep 92 08:24:33 EDT
Organization: Doyle, Munroe Consultants, Inc., Hudson, MA

In article <1992Sep4.151434.27363@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>, meadows@cslvax.weeg.uiowa.edu writes:
>     Now that we've got our Mailing List & File Server going well, and
> everyone likes it, there has been one question I have not been able to
> find in the docs (maybe this is not possible). 
> 
>     Is there any way to disable the sending of the FILESERV transaction
> log to users who request files? Ideally, we'd like to turn it off on
> an individual subscriber basis, but even globally would be ok. Is this
> possible? - If so, what do I need to do?
> 
>                  Thanks,
>                          Howard
> 

Howard,

In short, no.  I just looked at the code and the transaction log is wired in
pretty well.  It would be a fair amount of work even to allow it to be turned
off globally.

If you have a Bliss compiler, you could give it a try though.  It's a good
idea.

Dick
-- 
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: "J.C. Higgins, Sys Mgr CsVax1, UCC , Eire" <chris@CSVAX1.UCC.IE>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Trapping bounced mail messages.
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 21:31:00 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

Hi,
Is there any logical (or any other method for that matter) that allows
a copy of any mail that is in the process of being bounced to be sent
to the postmaster.

.sig invisible, cause this is an annoying line editor...must change Bulletin
editor...

Chris.

Chris@csvax1.ucc.ie
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
From: eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas)
Subject: Re: Username Lengths-Looking for an Explanation
Reply-To: ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE
Organization: SUNET, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 02:45:04 GMT

In article <0096069C.A2990300.10430@PANAM1.PANAM.EDU>, "James F. Burnett--University of Texas-PanAm" <burnett@PANAM.BITNET> writes:
> We created a new user with a 9 character username.  That user logged
> in and subscribed to a couple of mailing lists(both very active lists)

Users with login names longer than 8 bytes MUST subscribe via mail, not SEND.
The protocol used by BITNET supports userids of up to 8 bytes only.

> I fixed the problem by defining an alias for that user but began
> wondering/thinking about how many other usernames we have that are
> 8+ characters long and about the poor soul who replaces me when I decide
> to leave here who generates 1000 student usernames one semester that
> are each 10 characters long.  WOW !

I suspect the 8-bytes prefix was not unique in the case of this particular
user. That is, there were several UAF entries starting with these 8 bytes.

  Eric
From: Richard Ault <ault@queens.edu>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Setting host names for Sender and Return path
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:05:08 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

Is there any way to get MX 3.1c to set Return Path and Sender host names to
something other than the local host FQDN?  I have set MX_VMSMAIL_REPLY and the
like so that my From and Reply to headers refer to me as @queens.edu, but the
Return Path and Sender still use @host.queens.edu.

I want to be able to get certain recalcitrant listserv's (info-vax and
lanworks, to name two) to send to me @queens.edu.  My local host name is not
going to be stable in the next few months, but @queens.edu will always be valid
(at least as long as I'm here, since it's my baliwick).  We're a relatively new
Internet site and I'd like to get some way of doing subscriptions that won't
use local host names before turning our users loose and having to re-subscribe
the world when we change host names.  Note that we don't have a local DNS so I
can't diddle DNS settings at will.

Thanks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard H. Ault, Computing Services Center      ault@queens.edu
Queens College, 1900 Selwyn Ave                 ault@alumni.caltech.edu
Charlotte, NC 28274-0001                        (704) 337-2303
From: "Bob Johns, (604)363-6520" <bob@ccs.ios.bc.ca>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: RE: Trapping bounced mail.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 09:30:50 PDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

The key thing I would like to see, if this "forward to POSTMASTER" should
be implemented, is to have it configurable.  I don't have the resources
to intervene, so want a fully automatic "black box".  I would disable
this feature for our site.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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: "J.C. Higgins, Sys Mgr CsVax1, UCC , Eire" <chris@CSVAX1.UCC.IE>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: RE: Trapping bounced mail.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:55:46 EDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

In a previous article, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU wrote:
>Subject: RE: Trapping bounced mail.
>
>In article <00960654.3C37AE60.13396@WKUVX1.BITNET>, Hunter Goatley
> <goathunter@WKUVX1.BITNET> writes:
>>"J.C. Higgins, Sys Mgr CsVax1, UCC , Eire" <chris@CSVAX1.UCC.IE> writes:
>>>
>>>Is there any way that I can have a copy of mail that is to be 'bounced'
>>>back to the sender sent to the POSTMASTER.
>>>
>>Currently, there's not....
>>
>>>If it is not possible, then what are the chances of having the option
>>>in the next version.. (You reading this Hunter and Matt  :)
>>>
>>I think it'd be a useful option to have, and have already planned to
>>add that sometime.
>
>I think that having the ability to have a copy of the HEADERS of all bounced
>mail forwarded to the POSTMASTER would be a nice feature.  However, I don't
>think the body of the message need be forwarded as well.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   -
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>

No, I think that it would be better to have the whole message forwarded to
the POSTMASTER. I know that brings in some ethical problems, (reading
someone elses mail), but if the mail was bounced because the sender made
some sort of obvious typo on the destination address then the POSTMASTER
would be able to forward the message to the user. Or take the case where the
message is notification to an account that has been removed from the system,
that it has been unsubscribed from a mailing list. Wouldn't it be nice for
the POSTMASTER to be able to see that the account has been unsubscribed, and
not have to manually unsubcribe the account. (Which has been already removed
from the list).

                                                  Chris.

+ J.C. Higgins, Sys Admin  +  If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't
+ CHRIS@csvax1.ucc.ie      +  come back to you, hunt it down and KILL it. If
+ SCCS6002@iruccvax.ucc.ie +  that doesn't work, then GIVE UP peacefully.
From: Larry Horn <hornlo@okra.millsaps.edu>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Re: setting up news at mixed Ultrix/VMS site
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 11:34:13 CDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List


Thanks to all of you who replied to my query.  Since most, if not all,
of the information was posted as replies to the lists or covered in other
traffic, I won't summarize at this time.

I'd hoped to have something substantial to report by now, but other
projects have consumed my time.  Once I can get back on this project,
I'll post, as requested, a summary of my experiences.

- ---------------------------------- signed: 14-SEP-1992 11:33 C*T (USA) --- -
    Larry Horn / Millsaps College / Jackson, MS / hornlo@okra.millsaps.edu
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
From: "George D. Greenwade" <bed_gdg@SHSU.BITNET>
Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.mx
Subject: Re: FILESERV Transaction Logs
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 16:36:25 CDT
Organization: Mx-List<==>Vmsnet.Mail.Mx Gateway
X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List

On 5 Sep 92 08:24:33 EDT, Dick Munroe <munroe@dmc.com> posted:
> In article <1992Sep4.151434.27363@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
>  meadows@cslvax.weeg.uiowa.edu writes:
> >     Now that we've got our Mailing List & File Server going well, and
> > everyone likes it, there has been one question I have not been able to
> > find in the docs (maybe this is not possible).
> >
> >     Is there any way to disable the sending of the FILESERV transaction
> > log to users who request files? Ideally, we'd like to turn it off on
> > an individual subscriber basis, but even globally would be ok. Is this
> > possible? - If so, what do I need to do?
>
> In short, no.  I just looked at the code and the transaction log is wired
> in pretty well.  It would be a fair amount of work even to allow it to be
> turned off globally.
>
> If you have a Bliss compiler, you could give it a try though.  It's a good
> idea.

Depends on how you define good idea.  If you server is set to serve only
during specified times, or is set to serve certain thresholds at certain
times, or the files requested are larger than the transaction log, the
verification ought to be sent as soon as something is processed.  You can't
necessarily say thsi about the files being served.  While it is a little
more overhead and bandwidth, at least the log tells the user is everything
was successful or not (if not, what was bad is reported), as well as
everything to expect.  The extra log file shouldn't cause a user to go over
quota (if so, they are dangerously close anyway) and they are consistently
labelled in the Subj: line, so two keystrokes (d [RETURN]) get rid of them
quite easily.  The information generated for the end user is well worth any
annoyance they might feel, IMO.  If you're an even moderately heavily used
site, this precludes extra requests, which are even more overhead and
bandwidth, that may arise if a the end user is unaware that anything has
been done or has no idea what to expect.

Regards (and off my soapbox),   George
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
George D. Greenwade, Ph.D.                            Bitnet:  BED_GDG@SHSU
Department of Economics and Business Analysis         THEnet: SHSU::BED_GDG
College of Business Administration                    Voice: (409) 294-1266
P. O. Box 2118                                        FAX:   (409) 294-3612
Sam Houston State University              Internet:        bed_gdg@SHSU.edu
Huntsville, TX 77341                      bed_gdg%SHSU.decnet@relay.the.net
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%