[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

4227.0. "Paper Mail anomaly " by GIDDAY::BURT (Scythe my dandelions down, sport) Fri Jun 03 1994 06:47

Hello and greetings,

I'm waiting on prfoile details etc from the customer, but the story so far is 
as follows:

Customer running ALL-IN-1 V3.0 patchless  - MR 3.1

Customer has both ALL-IN-1 and WANG office mail - between the 2 there is a
product called Interroffice.

Customer has a cluster in Adelaide, and a number of microvaxes around the
country.
Mail from the cluster to the microvaxes is fine.
Mail from the microvaxes to the cluster, or to each other, occasionally
produces an anomaly on the addresses. From the sender side, the addresses are
correct, but when they reach the ALL-IN-1 recipient, the recipients address is
sometimes tagged as PAPER MAIL (even though they are NOT a paper mail 
addressee, and the mail HAS arrived successfully in their inboxes)
Interoffice, which handles the mail to WANG recipients, tags these PAPER MAIL
messages as failures and notifies the sender that the msg has failed.
The users, according to the customer, are not set up as PAPER MAIL recipients 
in their profiles.

This is INTERMITTENT! Does not happen all the time for the same users 
- happens some times for some users.


Any ideas on where this is strange paper mail tag is coming from?

Thanks & regards,

Chele
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
4227.1Incorrect logical on one node?SHRMSG::HOWARDYes it isFri Jun 03 1994 17:5313
    Hi Chele,
    
    Is this the product which sets up a network profile entry for each Wang
    user?  Or does it create a regular profile entry? It sounds as if one
    or more nodes in the cluster don't recognize something, so depending on
    which node get the message, it works or doesn't work.  Is there
    something in the MAIDES field?  Perhaps ALL-IN-1 assumes PAPER MAIL
    when it can't find the command procedure specified in MAIDES.  If the
    SITE logical which points to the command procedure were wrong on one
    node, it might cause this behavior.  This is a lot of speculation, of
    course, but you asked for any ideas.
    
    Ben
4227.2GIDDAY::BURTScythe my dandelions down, sportMon Jun 06 1994 04:2027
Hello again, 

Thanks for replying Ben.

The WANG thingy evidently automagically sets up a profile entry for each WANG
body (I've requested that the customer fax me an example)
The MAIDES field has the entry ALL-IN-1 for the ALL-IN-1 users.

The message header TO field looks like this:
  TO:  ALL-IN-1 System Manager                 ( MANAGERPAPER MAIL )

I found an article in STARS describing a sort of semi similar problem
 "Can't Send Mail Through MR/S, Get Rejection Of PAPER MAIL Address"
but the problem it was addressing was under 2.3
The script mentioned in the article, USERAGENT_POST.SCP, is still around, but
looks a smidgen elderly, but the gentleperson who wrote it still seems quite
active.

The address ( whositPAPER MAIL ) still appears when there are no WANG bods on 
the distribution list, but the mail DOES get through, and there are no failure 
msgs sent back (since it is INTEROFFICE that gets perturbed by the address 
PAPER MAIL)

Thanks & regards,

Chele
4227.3DDS incorrectly set up?IOSG::MARSHALLA glitch in realityMon Jun 06 1994 11:4214
I think I know this one.

It looks like they have OA$DDS_PRIME set to 1 or 2, but DDS not set up properly.
So ALL-IN-1 looks up mail addresses in DDS, can't find them (specifically, can't
find the ALL-IN-1 USERAGENT entry), and defaults to PAPER MAIL.  Note there is
no @ between the username and PAPER MAIL.  This is because the address ALL-IN-1
constructs from DDS already contains an @ (or so it thinks) except in the
anomolous PAPER MAIL case.  Hence the absence of an @ for this type of
PAPER MAIL address points an accusing finger at DDS.

So either deassign (or set to zero) OA$DDS_PRIME if they don't want DDS, or fix
up the USERAGENT DDS entry(ies?) for ALL-IN-1.

Scott
4227.4Defined wrong on one node?SHRMSG::HOWARDYes it isMon Jun 06 1994 22:324
    Of course what Scott said would fit into your intermittent scenario if
    OA$DDS_PRIME was defined differently on different nodes.
    
    Ben