Conference iosg::all-in-1_v30

    Rolf,
    
    From my knowledge, ALL-IN-1 only adds the Mail header if the Document
    type is MAIL . Check the attachment has Document type 'DOCUMENT'
    
    Regards
    Alan

Alan,

On the sender side the attachment is of type DOCUMENT if 
I do an IA (Index of Attachments) on the mail sent.

On the receiver side the mail message has two attachments.
The first is of type DOCUMENT (thats the bodytext of the
mail) and the second is of type MAIL (the attachment).

I'm really confused...

Thanks for your reply

Rolf

    Rolf,
    
    I do not understand how the header is being added.
    
    Can you try sending the same attachment to yourself Remotely (user@A1)
    and an X400 address. If this is received O.K start suspecting the MRX
    Gateway. Maybe the Mailbus Notes file can help
    How is the X400 mail being sent / addressed. 
    Also could you clarify exacly what the Bodytext and Attachment
    contains. Is the Bodytext the attachment text? What text if any does
    the second attachment contain?
    
    Confused but intrigued 

What part of the mail system is adding the "warning" text?  I've never seen it
before, so is there some customisation which is doing this, and in the process
inadvertently messing up the real message?

If a DOCUMNET attachment is getting converted to MAIL, then this is a problem
outside ALL-IN-1, as ALL-IN-1 can quite happily send document attachments to
remote addresses on Message Router.

Maybe MRX is configured incorrectly on your system?

Scott

    The behaviour is "caused" by MRX.
    
    X400 has no field analogous to the ALL-IN-1 NBS VEND[TYPE] field, so
    this field is lost upon translation form NBS to X409. Therefore on the 
    inbound side (translation from X409 to NBS), (most) things end up
    appearing as MAIL to ALL-IN-1.
    
    This is a known issue; there is the possibility that a future S-kit for
    MRX will include code to attempt to algorithmically deduce the MAIL vs
    DOCUMENT (ie is this a forwarded mail messge or an attachment) sense
    and mark it appropriately in the NBS message.

Dave,

Customer is not very happy with the statement I gave him.

Please can you tell me what you mean with the possibility taht a
future S-kit for MRX will fix this behaviour. Is this problem
already fixed in MRX V2.3 or when will it be fixed? You say this
is a known issue, so do I need to open a CLD to give it more
priority?

Thanks

Rolf

>> do I need to open a CLD

I doubt it; Dave says it's known, and the MRX folks appear to be working on
a solution.  Opening a CLD will only take resources away from providing the fix
to work on all the CLD paperwork!

This problem is just a consequence of using two different mail systems.  You
may as well write and complain to CCITT (or ITU-TS as it is now known) and NBS
that their standards are incompatible... all we're doing is adhering to these
standards.

Scott

    I meant we know about the issue, we understand what's going on, there
    have been some (limited) discussions as to what sort of algorithm might
    be used to deduce document vs mail...
    
    I'm not on the MRX team, so off-hand I don't know what sort of priority 
    may have been given to implimenting anything. Note that this is not new 
    behaviour; and over the life of MRX this is only the second time anyone
    has raised the issue, so I would _suspect_ it isn't high on the list.
    
    Go ahead and file a problem report, but be aware you may have a hard
    time justifying it at a CLD level. You might also want to think about 
    raising it against ALL-IN-1 too. Given their stated intention of moving 
    to an  MAILbus 400 base in the future, they will have to come up with an 
    alternative to using a DEC private NBS element to signal this (ie some 
    algorithmic approach). If IOS were to do this "now" (ie for Emerald), it 
    would make life easier for both MRX now and IOS in the future...
    
    Dave

    I have just come across the same problem as in .0
    
    In this case the message was being sent from ALL-IN-1 V3.0 via MRX to
    a third party X.400 user agent.
    
    The funny thing is we can not remember this happening when the customer was
    using ALL-IN-1 2.4.
    
    Any further ideas?
    
    Could this behaviour have been caused by upgrading to ALL-IN-1 V3.0
    
    
    Regards,
    
    Glyn

    Hi,
    
    I also have a customer who thinks that this problem occured since
    upgrading to v3.0 of ALL-IN-1. Is the problem definitely with MRX or 
    with changes to the ALL-IN-1 code on how it handle DOCUMENT vs MAIl. 
    This customer is also using MCM, but believes that the problem is 
    definitely caused by the upgrade of ALL-IN-1 as he never used to 
    have this problem in v2.4.
    
    	Thanks,
    
    			Julie

    Hi,
    
    A bit more information - the customer also upgraded MRX to version
    S2.2G007 - would this make a difference?
    
    	Thanks,
    
    			Julie

    julie,
    
    the contents of MRX S-kits is somewhere in STARS or you could ask in
    the Mailbus conference - I don't think this is an ALL-IN-1 question.
    
    regards,
    
    Andrew.D.Wicks