HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sam@csi.compuserve.com (Sam Neely)
Subject: Re: mail to compuserve??
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:13:49 GMT

In article <8duljFa00iUx845GdO@andrew.cmu.edu> Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>Is there anyway to send e-mail to someones compuserve account from the
>net?  How can this be done?

Subject: Addressing CompuServe Mail users

There are two types of CompuServe Mail addresses.  They can be
reached from the Internet as follows:

a) Members of the CompuServe Information Service have an address
   (a.k.a. User ID) of the form "xxxxx,yyyy", such as "70000,11".
   To send mail to such an address from the Internet, change the
   comma to a period and attach "@CompuServe.com".  For instance:
        70000.11@CompuServe.com

b) Members of organizations with a private CompuServe Mail area have
   an address of the form "organization:name", such as "ABC:J.SMITH".
   To send mail to such an address from the Internet, send it to
   "name@organization.CompuServe.com".  For instance:
        J.SMITH@ABC.CompuServe.com

   A few organizations have addresses which also include a department
   in the form "organization:department:name", such as
   "ABC:ACCTG:JOHN".  To send mail to such an address from the 
   Internet, send to "name@department.organization.CompuServe.com". 
   For instance:
        JOHN@ACCTG.ABC.CompuServe.com


There are also a number of special destinations available to users of
CompuServe Mail which are NOT accessible from the Internet,
including: 

    Facsimile Delivery    (e.g. >FAX: )  
    Postal Delivery       (e.g. >POSTAL: )
    Telex Delivery        (e.g. >TLX: )
    MCI Mail Delivery     (e.g. >MCIMAIL: )

Finally, please realize that only CompuServe Mail users have access
to our member directory.  Since there is no mechanism for you to
obtain addresses directly from CompuServe Incorporated, you should
obtain this information from the individuals with whom you wish to
correspond.  Thank you.
-- 
Sam Neely, CompuServe Incorporated		    +1 614 457 8600 (voice)
5000 Arlington Centre Blvd, Columbus, OH  43220	    +1 614 457 0348 (FAX)
Electronic Mail:  InfoPlex: >CSI:SAM      Internet: SAM@CSI.COMPUSERVE.COM
I have NOT lost my mind... It's backed up on tape somewhere.
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: scasterg@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stuart M Castergine)
Subject: What does this mean?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 05:44:35 GMT

Someone was recently trying to send mail to my site (not the one I'm
posting from now) and got the following error messages:

  ----- Transcript of session follows -----
451 makeconnection: server "smtp" unknown: Invalid argument
554 saqqara.cis.ohio-state.edu.tcp... 554 System file missing
554 <katrina@waltham.columbus.oh.us>... System file missing
 
Anybody know what that means?

She is able to send mail to this account:
scasterg@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, which is how she informed me about
the error, so I am surprised that she can't send to
waltham.columbus.oh.us, since waltham is a uucp node that is MX
forwarded through cis.ohio-state.edu (i.e., at the same site).

Other sites are able to send mail to waltham with no problem.

Thanks.
-- 
scasterg@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu -- Stuart M. Castergine

Wake the Witch!
From: mcdonald@fallout.lonestar.org
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: This is *HOW* to send to EasyLink!
Date: 2 Apr 92 22:24:57 GMT
Organization: DECUS DFWLUG BBS *Dallas*TX*

In article <9204020652.AA22985@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, nauen@WRAIR-EMH1.ARMY.MIL ("1159-DIRECTOR/OVERSEAS OPS") writes:
> In <0105009A.vtstt3@david.UUCP> david@david.UUCP (David A. Roth) writes
> 
>> Now for my problem...I'm still trying to tell a EasyLink user that
>> is connected by X.400 using an IBM AS400 how to send e-mail back to
>> me.  When I sent e-mail explaining bang addressing such as internet!...the
>> user on EasyLink said that this character is not on their keyboard!
> 
> The absence of a '!' character is probably not critical, inasmuch as X.400
> does not recognize it anyways.  Suggest that you advise the EasyLink user to
> try the address which should have appeared at the end of their message as
> 
> From:  
> C=US; ADMD=ATTMAIL; O=UUCP; DDA.ID=internet(b)cis.ohio-state.edu(b)david(b)david

It won't work with the ;'s.  ; is used to define a customer reference humber
(for billing purposes).

I think the address should be something like:
ADMD ATTMAIL
DDA.ID internet(b)cis.ohio-state.edu(b)david(b)david
END+

> However, if nothing works, it seems to me that this is where the EasyLink
> customer should call upon the network service desk, which, I should think,
> should be of the benefits provided.  They should say "Hey, folks.  I'm 
> getting this mail, but can't reply.  What's going on?"

I did that yesterday.  No response as yet.
> 
> If I knew an EasyLink number/userid for customer assistance, I'd write to
> them myself.

I think the customer service name is internal only, but maybe not.  If it is
accessible from the outside world, it would be:
SVC@ATTMAIL.COM

*************************************************************************
Dan McDonald                    * UUCP     ...utacfd!dalsil!mcdonald
Dallas Computer Services        * Internet dan.mcdonald@dallas.sil.org
Summer Institute of Linguistics * - or -   mcdonald@fallout.lonestar.org
7500 W Camp Wisdom Rd           * SILnet   DAN.MCDONALD@A1@DALLAS
Dallas, TX 75236                * FAXnet   1.214.709.3387
USA                             * POTSnet  1.214.709.3389
************************************************************************
X.400: C:US; ADMD=WESTERN UNION; O=SIL; DDA.ELN=62897168
       Include "VMS MAIL: DAN.MCDONALD" for automated delivery :-(
Maybesomedaynet: a:ATTMAIL; p:SIL; o:SIL; s:MCDONALD; g:DAN
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: smitty@es.com (Maurice Smith)
Subject: Need address/path 
Reply-To: smitty@dsd.es.com
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 19:18:36 GMT


-- 

Does anyone out there know the address/path to the University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand?  Specifically the Mechanical Engineering Department.

======================================================================
 Maurice Smith                     |  "It's easier to believe in God than to
 smitty@dsd.es.com  (use it!)      |   accept the blame ourselves."
 Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp. |  -- Solomon Short
 Salt Lake City, Utah              |  #include <standard_disclaimer>


Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:1514 news.sysadmin:836
From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Ran Atkinson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.software.b
Subject: RFI: mailing list & gateway software
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:15:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, DC

I'm looking for freely distributable software to do a couple of things, 
namely:

1) help automate a mailing list and its management
2) handle gatewaying a mailing list into a newsgroup (one-way)

  I can use archie just as well as the next guy, but without the name
of suitable software to look for, archie can't help.  So pointers to
software that will do either or both of the above would be greatly
appreciated.

  In case it matters, I'm running rn via NNTP to a remote server for
news access at present.  I'd rather avoid having to take up local disk
to fully install the news articles locally if at all possible.  I've
got a UNIX machine with sendmail and direct Internet access to run the
list from.

Ran
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.sendmail
From: doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Subject: Re: Testing BITNET links
Reply-To: doug@cc.ysu.edu
Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:15:25 GMT

Alan Coopersmith (alanc@ocf.berkeley.edu) writes:
: Our sendmail.cf was set up so that we couldn't mail to user@node.bitnet
: directly.  I think this is fixed, but I'm not sure.  Are there any bitnet
: addresses I can mail to that will just echo something back to me? (a
: misc.test sort of service)

Sending e-mail to a BITNET site with any kind of decent mailer, that
addresses a non-existent userid, will do it.  You'll get a no-such-local-
user mail bounce.

This one's guaranteed to bounce: bouncer@ysub.bitnet  (that's our local
bitnet+internet node).

Doug
-- 
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
doug@cc.ysu.edu	   doug@ysub.bitnet	<internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug
We've had 4 years of domestic policy failure.  Fire Bush this November.
From: sasdbh@fly.unx.sas.com (David Horne)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: mail to compuserve??
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:15:19 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasdbh@fly.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 549

In article <8duljFa00iUx845GdO@andrew.cmu.edu>, Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|>
|> Is there anyway to send e-mail to someones compuserve account from the
|> net?  How can this be done?

The address would be their Compuserve account number@compuserve.com,
ie:

   12345.6789@compuserve.com
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Horne               SAS Institute Inc.      (919) 677-8000 x6199
Quality Assurance        SAS Campus Drive        Rm. V422
sasdbh@unx.sas.com       Cary, NC 27513
From: moconnor@pms704.pms.ford.com (Mike O'Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: The need for specifying the OFFICIAL domain name in a header
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:24:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: fmsrl7.1992Apr12.162426.25161
Reply-To: Mike O'Connor <mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
Organization: "Fordz"
X-Disclaimer: Not an official spokesperson for Ford Motor Co.

In article <1992Apr11.211356.1@ptavv.llnl.gov> oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov writes:

:with what the mailer accepts from the user. Any reasonable mailer should make a
:reasonable attempt to use aliases and local names by converting them into
:FQDNs. I've never seen one which wouldn't, although I know of one System V

Just for the record, VMS MAIL (with most TCP/IP implementations)
experiences this problem.  You Cc: a local/user alias/symbol/logical
and that never gets FQDNized.  It's quite annoying.

						...Mike

-- 
 Mike O'Connor                     |  Ford Motor Company, USA
 Applications Systems Analyst      |  CPD P&MS ECC Core Software
 Phone #:  +1 (313) 390-4008       |  P.O. Box 2053, ECC MD-7
 Fax #:    +1 (313) 845-0576       |  Dearborn, MI  48121-2053
From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: The need for specifying the OFFICIAL domain name in a header
Date: 12 Apr 92 05:13:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.164249.10851@husc3.harvard.edu> utterbac@husc10.harvard.edu (Margot Utterback) writes:
>Recently, I contacted a workstation vendor about the mail system
>that comes with the workstation.  The operating system is based
>on System V release 4.  The mail system failed when the host portion
>of an address was an alias or nickname.  The response was that 
>RFC821 and RFC822 specify that the address must be the official
>domain name and that the entries in the host file and any 
>cname records in the DNS are irrelevent.

>This seems a little farfetched to me.  First, the rfcs in theis
>case seem to be irrelevent.  Don't they only specify what would
>be in the headers, not the address given to the mailer?  
 
YES! The RFCs have NOTHING to do with the user interface!

I think everyone is missing the point here. RFC-1123 requires the envelope name
(RCPT line) to include the fully qualified domain name. This has NOTHING to do
with what the mailer accepts from the user. Any reasonable mailer should make a
reasonable attempt to use aliases and local names by converting them into
FQDNs. I've never seen one which wouldn't, although I know of one System V
Release 4 vendor whose sendmail is so messed up that it really cannot be said
to work at all. Wonder if it's the same one? I won't speak their name, but they
just bought the company that makes most of their CPU chips.

The key issue here is the user interface to mail. While I personally prefer to
see FQDN used all of the time, most users never send mail outside of our local
domain and don't realise the significance of the llnl.gov on the end. They just
send to user@node and are done with it. sendmail then converts user@node to
user@FQDN and uses this address.

>Second,
>why limit the address even in the header? You get the host portion,
>ask the DNS what the MX record is.  It will respond with the
>IP address and the canonical name.  Bingo, you have the official
>name, just use that in the rest of the processing.  

Huh? If you send mail to me with an entry of user@node in the header, unless
there is some other information, I have no way to know where a given node is.
Not everyone is at Harvard. Some folk are at MIT and a few are not even east of
the rockies! Specifically, the "From:", "Sender:", "Reply to:" and any other
header used to derive the reply address MUST use the FQDN. No substitutes are
permitted. Some mail agents do allow the name, as entered by the user, to be
included in a special header line, but never in any of the RFC-822 mandated
header lines.

R. Kevin Oberman			Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: oberman1@llnl.gov		(510) 422-6955

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
From: kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones)
Subject: Re: The need for specifying the OFFICIAL domain name in a header
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:16:29 GMT

utterbac@husc10.harvard.edu (Brian (Margot?) Utterback) writes:
 > Recently, I contacted a workstation vendor about the mail system
 > that comes with the workstation.  The operating system is based
 > on System V release 4.  The mail system failed when the host portion
 > of an address was an alias or nickname.  The response was that 
 > RFC821 and RFC822 specify that the address must be the official
 > domain name and that the entries in the host file and any 
 > cname records in the DNS are irrelevent.
 > 
 > This seems a little farfetched to me.  First, the rfcs in theis
 > case seem to be irrelevent.  Don't they only specify what would
 > be in the headers, not the address given to the mailer?

RFC 821 (the SMTP protocol spec) definitely specifies addresses
that are to be given to the mailer.

Also, specific RFC 822 headers are used to generate reply
addresses, and these addresses are the ones given to the mailer.
So the addresses in the headers must be acceptable to the
transport system.

 > Second, why limit the address even in the header? You get the
 > host portion, ask the DNS what the MX record is.  It will
 > respond with the IP address and the canonical name.  Bingo,
 > you have the official name, just use that in the rest of the
 > processing.

Not quite.  If CNAME's were allowed for mail then you'd have to
do an extra lookup.  One lookup to map the aliases to the
canonical name, and another lookup for any MX records for the
canonical name.

For mail, MXs are the way to alias host names.  For everything
else use CNAMEs.  If you need both, then use both.
From: edh@news2.cis.umn.edu (Eric D. Hendrickson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Adding headers to outgoing mail
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:29:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.1992Apr9.152946.23794
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

Hello, I would like to be able to add headers such as X-Administrative-To:
and X-Messages-To: to some of my outgoing mail (for a mailing list I run).

How can I do this?  I use Elm, but I'd rather not have to be tied to one
mail program.  Sendmail is the transfer agent we use.

Thanks for any help!
		--eric
--
/----------"Oh carrots are divine, you get a dozen for dime, its maaaagic."--
|Eric David Hendrickson	    The game is afoot!           edh@news.cis.umn.edu
|Computing and Information Services    612/626-7761   University of Minnesota
\---------------------"Damnit!  I can't stop the heterocyclic declination!"--
-- 
/----------"Oh carrots are divine, you get a dozen for dime, its maaaagic."--
|Eric David Hendrickson	    The game is afoot!           edh@news.cis.umn.edu
|Computing and Information Services    612/626-7761   University of Minnesota
\---------------------"Damnit!  I can't stop the heterocyclic declination!"--
From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: The need for specifying the OFFICIAL domain name in a header
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:43:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.162426.25161@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>, moconnor@pms704.pms.ford.com (Mike O'Connor) writes:
> In article <1992Apr11.211356.1@ptavv.llnl.gov> oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov writes:
> 
> :with what the mailer accepts from the user. Any reasonable mailer should make a
> :reasonable attempt to use aliases and local names by converting them into
> :FQDNs. I've never seen one which wouldn't, although I know of one System V
> 
> Just for the record, VMS MAIL (with most TCP/IP implementations)
> experiences this problem.  You Cc: a local/user alias/symbol/logical
> and that never gets FQDNized.  It's quite annoying.

Sounds like a configuration problem, to me. It is specific to the mailer and
has nothing to do with the TCP/IP implementations. Of course, it's quite
possible that the mailer was included.

I am the postmaster on a VMS system and, while mail only passes FQDNs out the
door, it certainly accepts lots of other things, even things like
QUICKMAIL::SMITH, where QUICKMAIL is an IP MX entry. Of course I have to admit
that I'm running a proprietary commercial mail product. PMDF.

I suspect that a change in BIND in 4.8.3 may be behind this whole thing. In
earlier versions of BIND, the default behavior was to try to resolve an address
by appending the local domain to it. I believe that BIND now tries to resolve
the name exactly as it is received. If it's not a FQDN, the lookup fails.

The merits of this change have been heavily debated in BIND forums, but that is
probably the reason for the situation. My mailer trys to append the local
domain name to all queries which are not otherwise in a valid domain or locally
defined aliases or systems.

R. Kevin Oberman			Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: oberman1@llnl.gov		(510) 422-6955

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: The need for specifying the OFFICIAL domain name in a header
From: david@twg.com (David S. Herron)
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:07:52 GMT
Organization: The Wollongong Group, Palo Alto, CA

In article <ku70m3INNi37@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.164249.10851@husc3.harvard.edu> utterbac@husc10.harvard.edu (Margot Utterback) writes:
>I believe one of the original reasons for CNAMEs was to ease the migration
>from the pre-DNS host names to the DNS host names.  When a machine was
>switched to using a DNS name, its old name would be left as a nickname.
>The expectation was that many of these nicknames would be temporary.  They
>wanted to prevent these transient names from being captured in many
>peoples' mail files.  The assumption is that the primary name is likely to
>stick around longer.


Well, CNAME has uses beyond just that one.

For instance ... it supports `resource discovery' (of a limited sense)
with the advantage that the administrator can move the *location* of
the resource without the users having to reconfigure anything.

Concrete example:

You have a system with an e-mail -> FAX gateway installed.  You point people
to the FAX machine by telling them to send to 

	phone-number@fax-gateway.local.dom.ain

In your DNS you install CNAME records which map fax-gateway to the
system providing the real service.  If that machine breaks or is
upgraded or otherwise has to change its name, noooo problem.

You can repeat this solution `n' times.  The most common use might
be a distributed BSD/lpr environment.  Printers, after all, are a
touch more likely to move around than fax-gateway's...

It is also useful to have abbreviations for systems so you don't
have to remember to type

	rlogin herkimer
when	rlogin he

will do....



To answer the original question: having the e-mail system ignore CNAME's
and other forms of host-aliasing is bogus, IMO.  Regardless of what
it says in RFC-822 (remember, 822 is rather old) from a usability standpoint
it is silly and anal-retentive to require addresses to not be an alias.
The HR RFC likely has (nicer) words to this effect.

	David


-- 
<- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com>
<-
<- As for the prevalence of gratuitous stupidity in modern life, well,
<- need I say more than "MS-DOS"? -- Bill Janssen
From: utterbac@husc10.harvard.edu (Margot Utterback)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: The need for specifying the OFFICIAL domain name in a header
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:42:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Apr8.164249.10851
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Recently, I contacted a workstation vendor about the mail system
that comes with the workstation.  The operating system is based
on System V release 4.  The mail system failed when the host portion
of an address was an alias or nickname.  The response was that 
RFC821 and RFC822 specify that the address must be the official
domain name and that the entries in the host file and any 
cname records in the DNS are irrelevent.

This seems a little farfetched to me.  First, the rfcs in theis
case seem to be irrelevent.  Don't they only specify what would
be in the headers, not the address given to the mailer?  Second,
why limit the address even in the header? You get the host portion,
ask the DNS what the MX record is.  It will respond with the
IP address and the canonical name.  Bingo, you have the official
name, just use that in the rest of the processing.  

So, do any of you out there see any reason for the limitation?

Brian Utterback
utterbac@husc.harvard.edu
From: sra@epilogue.com (Rob Austein)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: The need for specifying the OFFICIAL domain name in a header
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:48:19 GMT
Organization: Epilogue Technology Corporation
In-reply-to: kyle@uunet.uu.net's message of 10 Apr 92 03:16:29 GMT


   Date: 10 Apr 92 03:16:29 GMT
   From: kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones)

   Not quite.  If CNAME's were allowed for mail then you'd have to
   do an extra lookup.  One lookup to map the aliases to the
   canonical name, and another lookup for any MX records for the
   canonical name.

Bzzzz.  Sorry, Kyle.

CNAME lookup is completely transparent.  Your DNS resolver should do
it for you on the fly.  Ie, you look for the MX RR and if the name is
really a CNAME you get back both the CNAME and the MX RR to which the
CNAME points.  Eg, given RRs:

    MISKATONIC-CTHULHU.ARPA.  IN  CNAME  CTHULHU.MISKATONIC.EDU.
    CTHULHU.MISKATONIC.EDU.   IN  MX   1 CTHULHU.MISKATONIC.EDU.
    CTHULHU.MISKATONIC.EDU.   IN  A      256.6.6.6

a single query for the triple <MISKATONIC-CTHULHU.ARPA, IN, MX> should
get you all three RRs.  Please see RFCs 1034 and 1035 for details.

--Rob Austein <sra@asylum.sf.ca.us>