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

Conference virke::mrmemo

Title:VAX MAILGATE for MEMO
Moderator:STKHLM::OLSSON
Created:Sat Feb 25 1989
Last Modified:Tue May 14 1996
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:216
Total number of notes:933

96.0. "UMC interaction + problem." by EEMELI::MITTS (back on the chain-gang,..) Thu Aug 22 1991 16:04

Hello MR/MEMO world!

Somewhere earlier in this conference Stefan speculated that you
might be able to use MR/MEMO together with UMC in case you specified
the addresses needing lower case in the DDS.

Well, I've just completed such an installation at a customer and
all seems to work well except for one detail :

The delivery notifications generated by MR/MEMO are forwarded to
the UMC/Ultrix user as non-deliveries.

Here is an example :

Return-Path: MAILER-DAEMON@memo/gateway.umc
Received: from umc by hilkka via MR/VTKES6 with conversational-MRIF;
        Thu, 22 Aug 91 14:42:18 +0300
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 14:38:07 +0300
Message-Id: 70834122801991/5031@VTKES6
To: "root%GivenName=ultrix%Surname=manager"@umc.VTKES6.umc
Subject: Returned Mail: Report Reason: -1

Mail returned by Message Router on memo/gateway at Thu, 22 Aug 91 14:38:07 +0300
Original Recipient: [email protected]
Reason: Report Reason: -1 --
        Report Diagnostic -1

End of message

In all cases the message is successfully forwarded to the recipient.
In your opinion, what would be the interpretation of this message,
the codes apparently are both -1?

Any ideas how to avoid messages like these?? 

Regs H�kan
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
96.1What about other user agents?STKHLM::OLSSONAnders Olsson, SIP SwedenSun Aug 25 1991 15:1938
    Hello H�kan,

.0> The delivery notifications generated by MR/MEMO are forwarded to
.0> the UMC/Ultrix user as non-deliveries.
.0>  .
.0>  .
.0>  .
.0> In all cases the message is successfully forwarded to the recipient.
.0> In your opinion, what would be the interpretation of this message,
.0> the codes apparently are both -1?

    If I remember correctly (I don't have access to the MRIF documentation
    right now), the difference between delivery notifications and non-
    delivery notifications is only that the non-delivery notifications contain
    reason and diagnostic codes.

    My guess is that some component in the message path has not understood this
    difference and regards all notifications as non-deliveries. The -1 values
    might be default values that the misbehaving component supplies in lack
    of reason/diagnostic codes in the message.

.0> Any ideas how to avoid messages like these?? 

    Setting /NOSEND_NOTIFICATIONS in MRMEMO is of course a way to do it,
    but that would stop all delivery notifications from leaving MRMEMO,
    which might upset non-UMC/ULTRIX users.

    Are there any other user agents involved that are able to issue delivery
    notifications (e.g. ALL-IN-1 MAIL)? How are these notifications received
    by the UMC/ULTRIX user? If they are correctly interpreted, this indicates
    that something could be wrong with MRMEMO, but if the result is the same,
    the problem is probably closer to UMC/ULTRIX.

    Could you catch an .NBS file with a delivery notification on its way from
    MRMEMO to UMC/ULTRIX (and also from ALL-IN-1 MAIL or some other user agent
    if available), so that we can check if the messages look ok?

    Anders
96.2MRX And MEMO are behave differently?EEMELI::MITTSback on the chain-gang,..Mon Aug 26 1991 10:3712
	Hej Anders,

	Some more info and then I'll try to get you a dump also!

	The test setup contains MEMO, UMC, X.400 and MRGATE. MRGATE, ofcourse,
	is of no use here. Messages sent out thru X.400 from UMC do not
	generate these fake (non)deliverymessages, so this would indicate
	that there is some sort of differenece between X.400 and MEMO delivery-
	notifications?

	H�kan