Conference iosg::all-in-1_v30

    I can't give an answer, but...
    
    all attachments are in the "shared" areas (ie OA$SHARxnnnn), so the
    document you think is the attachment, isn't, as it's in the user's
    private directory.
    
    Scott

    Rather than doing (the wonderful :-) ) Index of Attachments, go back to
    old fashioned AP calls, something like:
    
    	FOR CAB$ATTACH DO GET .ATT_DOC
    
    This will give you a list of the attachment file names in the GOLD/W
    buffer. Check those. Most probably a logical won't be defined properly,
    or something like that.
    
    Graham

Thanks...well I made some progress.

I used the command:    <for cab$attach do get .value 

That gave me the attachment:  OA$SHARA240:ZUMWEIS9E.WPL

That file looks accessible from all nodes which run ALL-IN-1.
The user is able to read it without a problem. 
It's just when she sends it that she gets:

ALL-IN-1 was unable to send your message off node posted on
Message titled: The ULTRA                                                      

REASON: %EMD-I-SEND_FNF, An attachment on message OA$SHARA189:ZUMWEJN5C.WPL cou

Any local deliveries have been made.

    A couple of thoughts...
    
<<<< That file looks accessible from all nodes which run ALL-IN-1.
    
    Does that mean that sonme nodes in the cluster are *NOT* running
    ALL-IN-1, and hence are not having A1V{23|24|30}START run for them?
    
    If so, could the Sender (or Message Router perhaps??) be running on one
    of those nodes and hence not have all the logicals defined?
    
    Secondly, (a minor insult :-) ) are you sure you were looking at the
    right message to check the attachments? I think you need to have the
    failing message current at the WP menu before you can do the FOR
    CAB$ATTACH and be sure of getting the right message. I know I got this
    wrong when I was trying it out before posting my previous note!
    
    Graham (Exhausted my mail knowledge now...)

>    Does that mean that sonme nodes in the cluster are *NOT* running
>    ALL-IN-1, and hence are not having A1V{23|24|30}START run for them?
>    If so, could the Sender (or Message Router perhaps??) be running on one
>    of those nodes and hence not have all the logicals defined?

I knew someone was going to ask that.  I should have pre-empted the question.
We only run Message Router on the nodes that start ALL-IN-1.  Thousands of
messages are sent off-node everyday - this is the only one with this problem.

>    Secondly, (a minor insult :-) ) are you sure you were looking at the
>    right message to check the attachments? 

It never hurts to ask the obvious, but I had the very message that generates
the error (when sent off-node) selected.

-  I still get the same error when I try to send it today also.  Today I 
did a FA (File Attachment) on the message.  I then was able to send the 
"new message" (the filed attachment) successfully.  Still trying to figure
it out.

    <<< We only run Message Router on the nodes that start ALL-IN-1.
    
    Curses, I thought this was my chance to look good!
    
    <<< Today I did a FA (File Attachment) on the message.  I then was able to
    <<< send the "new message" (the filed attachment) successfully.
    
    You get a new document created when you do that. Still at least it
    shows (??) that there's nothing wrong with the contents of the file.
    
    I'm stuck!
    
    Graham

Can the user send the message successfully if she sends it EXPRESS? Note that 
this will ALWAYS APPEAR TO WORK (the user will not receive an error 
message), but if it fails the message will be on the sender queue - so check 
the queue after the send.

Trying to narrow down what could be the problem, I'm assuming that the user is 
attempting to forward a message which she has received? (The attachment seems 
to be older than the message being sent). Was it received from the local 
ALL-IN-1 system or brought in by the fetcher?

grahame

Thanks for the response but I won't be able to answer those last questions
since the user has deleted the problem document.  They were happy with
the fact that a FA (File Attachment) gave them a sendable document - 
and all other documents are fine.