Conference rdgeng::ultrix-mail

>>	Digital UNIX's SMTP mailer is built-in to sendmail.  Ie. one
>>	of the more popular UNIX systems in existence.  If the customer
>>	from .0 couldn't work against Digital UNIX, then it most
>>	likely wouldn't work against most other UNIX systems either.
>     Its true that our mailer is among the most popular, but the sender in
>     this case has their mailer written by themselves and claimed strictly
>     followed RFC 821. So they want the answer "Yes" or "No".

	Doesn't sound like they want an answer, they already have one.
	And your attitude is not much better.  Reality is as I stated,
	they can bitch and moan about one vendor (Digital), but it's
	not going to help them exist in the real world.  Even if Digital
	were to fix it (assuming they/you ever officially report the
	problem, the notesfile isn't official), they'll still be broken,
	regardless of how stubburn they want to be.  Defacto standards
	often outweigh RFC's in the real world.

    Jeff is correct that it doesn't matter what the RFC says. It matters
    what sendmail does.
    
    However, both our standard "King James" version of sendmail and the
    latest sendmail V8.8.4 terminate RFC821 responses with <CRLF>:
    
    $telnet us1rmc.bb.dec.com 25^M
    Trying 16.57.16.6...^M
    Connected to us1rmc.bb.dec.com.^M
    Escape character is '^]'.^M
    220 us1rmc.bb.dec.com King James Sendmail 5.65/rmc-22feb94 ready at
    Fri, 24 Jan 97 12:27:56 -0500^M
    helo seexp.see.mro.dec.com^M
    250 Hello seeaxp.see.mro.dec.com, why do you call yourself seexp.see.mro.dec.com?^M
    quit^M
    221 us1rmc.bb.dec.com closing connection^M
    ^MConnection closed by foreign host.^M
    $
    
    So your answer is that the source was making excuses.
    
    -Tom
     

    >	Doesn't sound like they want an answer, they already have one.
    Its true that the sender is making an excuse, but my customer is not
    the sender. They cannot receive mail and thus got those message from
    the sender. They are not sure and ask us "Yes" or "No". My answer to
    them is either "Yes, we are" or "No, we are not". As I stated, I
    understand our Unix is among the most popular and should not have
    problem. If I can answer them in this way, I don't need to ask in the
    notes conference.
    
    >	And your attitude is not much better.  Reality is as I stated,
    Would you be more clear on this point? Do you mean my attitude towards
    the notes? My attitude towards the customer? My attitude representing
    the customer? My attitude on asking the question? Or others so that I
    can make improvements?
    
    Thanks and regards,
    Mickwid.

    BTW -
    
    Just in case I wasn't very clear in .4, the answer is "Yes. Digital's
    (and others') versions of sendmail are RFC821-compliant." If either you
    or the customer are unsure, you can perform the experiment in .4
    yourself on any SMTP server with:
    
    	$ script temp.tmp
    	$ telnet <servername> 25
    	helo <yourhostname>
    	quit
    	$ exit
    	$ emacs temp.tmp 
    	[observe the ^M (<CR>, \r) at the end of each line]
    
    -Tom

    re .6
    
    Thanks a lot, the script sure help.
    
    Thanks and regards,
    Mickwid.
    
    p.s. Actually I followed re .1 to answer the customer, only they still
    pushed me for Yes/No answer.

    maybe the customers application and other systems REALLY don't
    conform...BUT this is how they work so they expect other vendors
    systems to work the same....
    
    many times over the years you get a customer who says "gee my xyz
    app works with so and so but not with yours" 
    
    you check and find we're compliant to the latest "standard/RFC/etc."
    yet because of the investment they have the customer isn't going to 
    re-write there xyz app., you now have an unhappy customer who'll
    most likely start moving away from our products until the day they
    need to become compliant...

    In this case, I think they'd have a hard time finding somebody else's
    product to move to. :-) (They're all the same except for this
    apparently home-grown one.)
    
    -Tom