Conference utrop1::linkworks_v3

Bjarne,

This behaviour of LinkWorks external mail is identical on all platforms (so 
it is not specific to VMS).  From the start a difference was made between 
"positive" and "negative" delivery reports.  When a ("positive") delivery 
notification is requested, the OR address of the involved recipient is never 
displayed (so the "l" switch is not effective at all in this case).  It was 
felt to be sufficient to display either the CommonName or Surname (whatever 
is available in the X.400 address) in these cases.

In case of non-delivery reports, the involved recipient address is displayed 
unless the "l" switch is specified (which suppresses the OR address in the 
event).

The behaviour for "positive" delivery reports can easily be changed (of 
course the OR address of the recipient is known) but the event is going to 
look pretty ugly (due to long X.400 addresses).

Check for yourself whether or not you like the non-delivery report with the 
OR address in it.  Than decide if this technique is to be preferred for the 
"positive" delivery reports as well.  When the answer is yes, issue a 
modification request.  When having a request for this change, we will have to 
judge if everybody in the LinkWorks community is going to like this approach.

Berd Schimmel (LinkWorks engineering)

    Thanks for the very clear answer, Berd!
    
    I have informed the customer and am waiting for his response.  I'll
    keep you posted .....
    
    Thanks,
    
    	Bjarne :-)

    Berd,
    
    Here is the response from the customer to your answer.  Where do we go
    from here - "Change Request", SQR or something?
    
    Thanks,
    
    	Bjarne :-)
    
    > 
    > The positive delivery report is not satisfactory as it is today .
    > We need a much more detailed information in return. We can end up with 
    > sending (important) mail to groups of recipients all with same surname
    > (typically :"license" in offshore Norway oil-companies). We may not know 
    > who really got the mail as we only get a "mail to licences delivered" as 
    > a message back.  One of the reasons for going with X400 is to get 
    > detailed info back...if wanted.  There should be FLAGS for this in the 
    > configuration setup for LinkWorks external mail (Or may be even at the 
    > user-level?)
    > 
    > Here I would also like to stress the importance of getting the unique
    > ID of a mail send from LinkWorks presented to the user. The delivery 
    > report should then be connected to this ID.
    >
    > In general:
    > As the information carried over X400 is expected to be quite "serious"
    > and have content with big economical impacts, all the strength/
    > possibilities of X400 should be made available at the easiest/highest 
    > level for the user (identifications, security,priority etc. etc.). X400 
    > is not to be used "only" for giving someone a message. Then we might as 
    > well go for Internet-mail.
    > 
    

Bjarne,

The customer is requesting new functionality even at the LinkWorks mail 
user interface level (possibilities to define details of reports and 
handling of unique mail identifications).  This is far more than the easy 
change (adding an OR address to "positive" delivery reports) I referred to 
earlier.

I will forward the information from .-1 to product marketing.  You should 
do the same to get things formalised.

Regards, Berd Schimmel

The official way to report bugs or change requests is IPMT. This tool
is known by MCS.

Martin

    Thanks both of you.
    
    I'll enter an IPMT, as normal, for the requested functionality
    changes.
    
    Cheers,
    
    	Bjarne  :-)