[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference iosg::all-in-1_v30

Title:	OLD ALL-IN-1 (tm) Support Conference
Notice:	Closed - See Note 4331.l to move to IOSG::ALL-IN-1
Moderator:	IOSG::PYE

Created:	Thu Jan 30 1992
Last Modified:	Tue Jan 23 1996
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	4343
Total number of notes:	18308

2684.0. "internet list server addressing problem" by MDCRAB::MARSHALL (Still Here... i think) Sat May 08 1993 01:14

    ALL-IN-1 appears not to be handling internet mail correctly at my
    customer's site. My customer is using PMDF as the internet gateway.
    
    Internet mail has the concepts of  both a Sender and From attributes,
    and ALL-IN-1 only holds what it calls the FROM_ADDRESS attribute which
    happens to correlate to the internet mail Sender attribute (at least
    it does by the time every  thing has come through message router).

    This is an issue because if, as a very over simplified example, an 
    internet mail user sends a message to a list-server the list-server 
    then sends the message to every addressee registered as a member of 
    that list group. In the internet mail world the Sender attribute is 
    the list-server address and the From attribute is the originating user
    address. However if one of this messages comes over to ALL-IN-1 via
    the PMDF gateway and Message Router then ALL-IN-1 loads the incoming
    message local FROM_ADDRESS attribute with the internet mail Sender
    address. As a result if an ALL-IN-1 user answers this message the
    reply would be delivered to the list-server address and not to the
    originating internet mail user.

    My customer is using the PMDF gateway and is convinced that the PMDF
    gateway is following all the correct rules and RFC guidelines. So he is
    now of the opinion that DEC should fix the problem. I told him that I
    suspect that this issue is related to the Message Router NBS format /
    ALL-IN-1 interface and that Digital would probably not be willing to
    touch it.  
    
    Has anyone encountered this issue?   ....and found a solution?
    
    				Marshall,

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
2684.1	More people to ask	FORTY2::ASH	Grahame Ash @REO	`Mon May 10 1993 13:43`	8
	Have you tried asking your MTS Support manager? Digital has gateways to the Internet, and I haven't heard of any problem like this from that area (pointing to PMDF as a possible source of the problem). You might also try asking in the MAILBUS conf on Forty2, to get wider readership. grahame
2684.2	Any solution?	MIMS::BEKELE_D	When indoubt THINK!	`Thu Jun 09 1994 23:13`	7
	The problem in .0 apparently is still a problem with some customers. Is there any solution to it (MTS site mgr was not much helpful)? Thanks, Dan
2684.3	I don't think ALL-IN-1 has much choice in the matter...	IOSG::MARSHALL	A glitch in reality	`Fri Jun 10 1994 12:15`	14
	I don't think this is really an ALL-IN-1 issue. The problem the customers are experiencing reflects a difference in the set of attributes carried on a message within the Message Router domain, and those carried on a message in the Internet domain. It is entirely the responsibility of the gateway between the two domains to define the mapping from one set of attributes to the other. The Message Router FROM address is defined to be the message originator, and this is what ALL-IN-1 uses to set FROM_ADDRESS (what else could/should it use?). But it sounds as though the gateway in question is putting the wrong Internet address (ie the Sender to use .0's terminology) in this message element. Where does the gateway put the Internet From address (ie the address you want user agents connecting to Message Router to use)? Scott
2684.4		CSOA1::LENNIG	Dave (N8JCX), MIG, @CYO	`Fri Jun 10 1994 15:40`	11
	I'll hazard a guess that the PMDF gateway is mapping the SMTP 'Sender' to the NBS 'Sender' (ie envelope [P1] originator info) and the SMTP 'From' to the NBS 'From' (ie content [P2] originator info). User agents as a general rule are only supposed to use the P2 info to form the reply address. In your case you seem to be indicating that these two address strings represent two truly differant destinations. As .-1 indicates, you need to focus on PMDF's address mapping algorithm. dave