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

Conference chefs::ms-exchange

Title:	Microsoft Exchange Server
Notice:
Moderator:	FLASK2::SYSTEM

Created:	Fri Feb 17 1995
Last Modified:	Thu Jun 05 1997
Last Successful Update:	Thu Jun 05 1997
Number of topics:	1099
Total number of notes:	5174

853.0. "MIME attachment and attnnn.dat, why ?" by ZPOVC::CHINGYUE () Fri Jan 31 1997 15:01

    I have 2 Exchange servers being connected by PMDF/MR because they are
    on different IP domain, so I am using decnet to serve the connection by
    using autoforward from their mailworks accounts.
    
    Anyway, both Exchange server's IMC has been setup to send attachment
    using MIME in the IMC as the defaults and by email domains.
    
    However, when MSX (A) send excel or powerpoint attachments to MSX (B),
    the attachment appears as attnnn.dat but not the other way round.
    
    In other words, IF MSX user on MSX (B) send ppt or xls attachment to
    MSX (A), thsee attachment would appear as 1.xls and 2.ppt
    
    I am very puzzled. 
    
    Both IMC's MIME type does NOT have the octet-stream binding. PMDF has
    been setup exactly alike on both vaxes. Why is it that the MIME
    encapsulation/decode only work one-way ?
    
    Question - at which end does MSX sets the attachment to attnnn.dat ?
    From the sending end ? or the receiving end ? Both PMDF uses the same
    mappings. and conversions files. Should I be looking at MSX (A) or MSX
    (B)'s settings ?
    
    The Properties,headers information for the message with attnnn.dat says
    	content-type:Application/vms-rms; mr-type=foreign
        .... other RMS files information.
    
    I am using the conversions. and mappings. files from
    anchor::pmdf$files:
    
    Any idea or suggestion ?
    
    regards,
    ching-U

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
853.1	looks more like PMDF problem	PARZVL::dhcp-35-128-227.mro.dec.com::kennedy	nuncam non paratus	`Sat Feb 01 1997 00:31`	38
	Ching-U, Glad you posted a note here, I've been trying to respond to your post to the info-pmdf notes conference. > Question - at which end does MSX sets the attachment to attnnn.dat ? > From the sending end ? or the receiving end ? Both PMDF uses the same > mappings. and conversions files. Should I be looking at MSX (A) or MSX > (B)'s settings ? > The Properties,headers information for the message with attnnn.dat says > content-type:Application/vms-rms; mr-type=foreign > .... other RMS files information. The filename is being set by the incoming Exchange IMC - because what it's receiving from PMDF is tagged as Application/vms-rms. This looks more like a PMDF problem than an Exchange problem. A suggestion - make sure you've compiled the configuration on both PMDF machines. If that doesn't help, then you may want to compare the MAPPINGS. & CONVERSIONS. files on both systems (and check owner/protection). Do you really have 2 PMDFs? I don't see why that would be necessary, one could do the job easily If you can't find anything different in PMDF, then I would check the IMC on the sending side - you could stop MR, send the message & then check it in the PMDF queue. If this doesn't help, can you reply and be more specific about how the mail is being routed, e.g. ExchangeB -SMTP-> PMDF -DECnet-> MR -DECnet-> MR -> PMDF -> ExchangeA (e.g. From Exchange B to first PMDF machine, then via MR to second PMDF machine, then to Exchange A). If MAILworks is also involved, that needs to be considered. Is this work for a customer?
853.2	Mailworks is involved and it is for a customer	ZPOVC::CHINGYUE		`Sat Feb 01 1997 14:17`	20
	Yes, this is for a customer. You are right about the route. Mailworks is involved as well. Both VAX machines are running the similar mappings. and conversions. files. Both been compiled. It's just the owner/protection that I've not check. ExchangeB -SMTP-> PMDF -DECnet-> MR -DECnet-> MR -> PMDF -> ExchangeA Node B Node A It's just strange that MSX A to MSX B works but not the other way round !! The route would be the opposite direction, for the scenorio that works. BTW, how is just ONE PMDF going to do the job when Exchange A uses IP 161.101.x.y while Exchange B uses IP 202.2.a.b ? Could you enlighten ? If just one PMDF could do the job, it would be much easier ! ching-U
853.3	Rich Text Formatting involved ?	VARESE::VIOTTO		`Mon Feb 03 1997 12:32`	10
	Which is the RTF (rich text formatting) setting of the two IMC? (Properties->Internet mail->Interoperability). I had a connection working properly, but when I set "always" for RTF formatting I saw attachments converted to useless .dat files, as you mention. The same happens if users you are sending to in the PAB have the "always use RTF" flag set. Regards Alberto
853.4	1 PMDF should do, unless it's a security issue	PARZVL::ogodhcp-125-128-23.ogo.dec.com::kennedy	nuncam non paratus	`Mon Feb 03 1997 18:49`	13
	BTW, how is just ONE PMDF going to do the job when Exchange A uses IP 161.101.x.y while Exchange B uses IP 202.2.a.b ? Could you enlighten ? If just one PMDF could do the job, it would be much easier ! Is there a firewall in between? You shown us a bit of the mail configuration, but I could be making assumptions about the network. There would need to be a IP routing path in between the 2 networks. Are these connected to the Internet? Are they in 2 different organizations? If they're in the same company, one PMDF should be sufficient, as long as the 2 networks can reach each other. If they're in different organizations, it may be that you've hit on the correct solution.
853.5	Silly mistake on MAPPINGS.	ZPOVC::CHINGYUE		`Tue Feb 04 1997 04:02`	15
	The 2 Exchange servers are on 2 different organizations, not connected by any gateway or router for TCPIP, except DECNET. Thanks for all the help and attention. Managed to get it working. It was caused by a silly mistake on my end. PMDF mappings. file's channel should be mtcp (for multinet) instead of utcp (for UCX). This is because one machine uses multinet while the other uses UCX ! Thanks, ching-U PS: The RTF part is very interesting. I will take note of that as well.
853.6	What about DECnet SMTP?	LEMAN::BOTHNER	Tor Bothner (Office consultant, GEO)	`Fri Feb 14 1997 12:18`	9
	If things work now, fine. However, it seems unnecesarly complicated to use MR between two PMDF installations. Normally you get much better results, for much less hassle and money, by simply running SMTP on DECnet (the DSMTP channels, not to be confused with the DECnet mail channels, which of course are unusable). --tor