| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 63.1 | Yes | STKOFF::SPERSSON | Pas de Probleme | Thu Jan 03 1991 12:03 | 18 |
|
Hi Marc,
> So: does MRMEMO put the TO's and CC's in the evelope in the same
> order as in the content ?
In the same order, yes. Actually, since MEMO does not support the
concept of CC:s, CC recipients are never generated by MRMEMO.
For messages in the MR->MEMO direction, CC:s are treated as TO:s,
although the CC recipients are presented as such if the distribution
list option is set.
FYI, MRMEMO performs DDS lookups on the Envelope elements. This is not
to say that's preferable. I'm not sure what MIG's recommendations on
this are.
Stefan
|
| 63.2 | Thank you | KETJE::VANHOOSTE | Guide to Shadowland | Thu Jan 03 1991 13:01 | 11 |
| Stefan,
Thanks.
About the use of the envelope for revlookups : I am inquiring @ MIG
about that.
It seems some gateways do it on the envelope, some do it on the
content.
From which my question.
Marc VH.
|
| 63.3 | I would prfer the content | MUDIS3::RROSENBERGER | Rainer Rosenberger @MFR, PZ-SOGY | Tue Jan 15 1991 11:56 | 18 |
| I would prefer to do the address lookups on the content header. There
are three reasons for this:
1. The TS change the addresses on the envelope (due to adding ROUTE terms
when passing several nodes respectively by /ROUTE or /REPLACE commands)
2. MR/S and MR/P are using the content header
3. There might be gateways which remove recipients from the envelope
(for instance MRX always does a NONDISCLOSE).
If you are only talking about the sender lookup than it's not too
critical. I think this is also a some sophisticated question. As soon
as the foreign mail system doesn't have the concept of envelope and
content header I feel that a gateway has to act like a UA, i.e. look at
the content.
Regards,
Rainer
|
| 63.4 | | KETJE::VANHOOSTE | Guide to Shadowland | Wed Jan 16 1991 16:38 | 19 |
| Well,
I've informed ;
MR/S and MR/P use the content for the FROM: but not for the TO: and CC:
I was told. For those the envelope is used, because the action bit (to
see whether action is required or not) is in the envelope and because
no one can/is willing to guarantee that the order of rec in the content
and the envelope is the same.
So that's what we then proposed to the CSO.
For the FROM: it makes indeed more sense to use the content stuff with
some caution. I guess use of location codes like used in DEC could
really mess things up, so there is still a backup scheme to the
envelope needed.
Not what I liked to see, but that's life.
Marc VH.
|
| 63.5 | needs both, envelope and content header | MUDIS3::RROSENBERGER | Rainer Rosenberger @MFR, PZ-SOGY | Tue Jan 22 1991 17:02 | 19 |
| May be my note .3 was a bit misleading. I had only the distribution
list (displayed to the recipient, i.e. the content header) in my head.
Sure, in order to deliver the mail you'll have to use the envelope
(check mailbox and action flag). But even in this case it might be
necessarry to scan the content header too (if your foreign mail system
doesn't support the concept of envelope and content header - there is
one and only one mail header - AND if the foreign mail system supports
delivery and receipt notifications both. In this case you'll have to
merge the envelope and the content header).
But in order to display the distribution list to the recipient
you'll have to use the content anyway (this is a UA functionality).
And as far as I know this is done by the MR/ibm (ibm=R,S).
Regards,
Rainer
|