T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
274.1 | Situation Normal, All..... | IOSG::PYE | Graham - ALL-IN-1 Sorcerer's Apprentice | Thu Mar 19 1992 11:03 | 8 |
| Since mail was hardly changed in V3, I would expect that this behaviour
will be the same as V2.4.
Full support of X400 in ALL-IN-1/IOS will be provided in a PFR.
Sorry,
Graham
|
274.2 | Same old mail you know and love | AIMTEC::WICKS_A | Vote Bill'n'Opus for a weirder USA | Thu Mar 19 1992 16:29 | 13 |
| Chele,
The Mail in ALL-IN-1 predates MRIF let alone X.400 in fact sometime
next year (May I believe) the code will be celebrating it's 10th
birthday.
Ah X.400 in a PFR now where have I heard that before (:==:)
Rememeber the slogan "DIGITAL had it then"
Regards,
Andrew.D.Wicks
|
274.3 | PFR? | GIDDAY::BURT | Chele Burt - CSC Sydney, DTN 7357714 | Thu Mar 19 1992 23:54 | 11 |
| Thanks guys,
That was the impression I received from reading the DIAMONDFT & A1INF
conferences - lots of lack of comment.
BTW - will that be the PINK PFR, or the GREEN PFR?
Regards,
Chele
|
274.4 | Being even more than usually thick: | IOSG::PYE | Graham - ALL-IN-1 Sorcerer's Apprentice | Fri Mar 20 1992 11:18 | 5 |
| Re .-1
No, sorry I don't get the colour code...
Graham
|
274.5 | Question and comments | THEBAY::WIEGLEBDA | Hit the button, Frank! | Tue Mar 31 1992 02:41 | 26 |
| Excuse my ignorance on this please, but what is "PFR"?
I'm very interested in X.400 support by ALL-IN-1, being well-versed in
X.400 but extremely frustrated by ALL-IN-1's implementation of X.400
access.
I'm most interested in when ALL-IN-1 will provide a better template for
X.400 addressing - supplying options for Surname, Given Name, and
Initials for instance.
Also, I'm hoping for the day when "MR Mailbox" is no longer requested
in the template. Either the addressed X.400 domain is known or not
known - the routing should be tranparent to the user. The MTA
definition should be stored in DDS and validated by the User Agent
(ALL-IN-1).
The storage and display of X.400 addresses by ALL-IN-1 leaves much to
be desired as well - most of the useful data runs off the screen,
making it nigh impossible to manage.
Every couple years, I make another attempt at becoming an ALL-IN-1
user, but tend to give up in frustration after a month or so.
BTW, we are currently running V2.4.
- Dave
|
274.6 | PFR is a context-sensitive TLA | AIMTEC::WICKS_A | Vote Bill'n'Opus for a weirder USA | Tue Mar 31 1992 03:34 | 18 |
| PFR is an ever-changing term in that it stands for Possible Future Release
In the old notes file PFR often meant what turned out to be ALL-IN-1
v2.3 and then later it came to mean ALL-IN-1 v3.0 (a soon to be
released version)
At this moment in space and time PFR means something after v3.0 and so
you'll will have to ask specifics in ABBOTT::A1INFO.
Being naturally pessimistic by nature I point out thaT X.400 was
promised for both v2.3 and v3.0 but didn't make it into either.
who knows what will be in the PFR...
Regards,
Andrew.D.Wicks
|
274.7 | Some of .5's problems can be fixed | IOSG::SHOVE | Dave Shove -- REO-D/3C | Tue Mar 31 1992 11:50 | 15 |
| RE: .5
There's not much that can be done about the display of X.400 addresses
(or any other long addresses) without a significant re-design of the
User Interface.
However, your other point, about the X.400 addressing template, can be
fixed on-site. The "template" is actually just an FMS form (called
something obvious like X400) which can be customised. You could easily
remove the MR mailbox field and make the form supply the correct value
for you (or - more simply - add an FMS default value for the field so
the user didn't have to fill it in). Similarly, you could add Initials
etc.
Dave.
|
274.8 | Much appreciated | THEBAY::WIEGLEBDA | Hit the button, Frank! | Tue Mar 31 1992 19:23 | 14 |
| RE: .6 and .7
Thanks much for the info.
Are there any particular document pointers on the details of the
current ALL-IN-1 X.400 addressing template? Also, is this customizable
on an individual basis or does it affect all users? (It isn't my system
to play with.)
Having to customize individually is certainly not the ideal situation
for something that should be in the product itself, but it provides a
good work-around. Thanks again.
- Dave
|
274.9 | You can do it for a single user, if required | IOSG::SHOVE | Dave Shove -- REO-D/3C | Wed Apr 01 1992 12:29 | 21 |
| You can make personal customised versions of both the form (its name is
in fact X400FM) and the command file which lies behind it if you need
to (X400.CMU - note that, despite its wierd file extension of .CMU it's
in fact a normal DCL command file).
You will find X400FM in library OA$LIB:OAFORM. Use the FD subsystem to
make a private copy in your USER.FLB forms library (which will then be
used in preference to the system one) and edit it as desired.
If you need to change the processing behind it, copy OA$LIB:X400.CMU to
your default ALL-IN-1 subdirectory and edit it. Again, it will be used
in preference to the system one (DON'T CHANGE ITS NAME!!)
Or, use the Customisation Management subsystem to make the changes -
this would be the "right" way to do it, but you may not have the
Application Progrmmer privs which you need to use CM.
I suspect you may need some help in making any but very simple changes,
however.
Dave.
|