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

Conference forty2::mailbus_400

Title:MAILBUS 400 User Forum
Notice:kits 100-109 - Infocenter //www.digital.com/info/messaging
Moderator:IOSG::MARSHALL
Created:Thu Jun 11 1992
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:3210
Total number of notes:9174

2879.0. "ALL-IN-1 to EXCHANGE interoperability FIX" by IOSG::EVANS () Tue Jun 11 1996 19:20

T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
2879.1Language independent?VNABRW::EHRLICH_KBL54, a new era has begun!Mon Jun 17 1996 12:0314
2879.2It's independent! See #268.14 in MS-EXCHANGE conf.VNABRW::EHRLICH_KBL54, a new era has begun!Tue Jun 18 1996 14:221
2879.3private ext MS-EXCHANGE 4.0 SV-Pak3VMSNET::M_NEVINSFri Feb 21 1997 02:4312
    Using MAILbus 400, do we support the "per recipient private ext",  the "per
    message envelope private ext" or do we support both? Microsoft told our
    customer that it did a fix for the P1 private extensions for the "per
    recipient private ext". We have a customer that is having a problem with
    non-del's due to a problem with the private ext. They have ALL-IN-1 3.1,
    MB400 2.0.68, XMR 1.2.2 and the Exhange Server has MS-EXCHANGE 4.0 SV-Pak3.
    
    In this article, it just states that Exchange has a fix for the P1
    private extensions. The changes the customer has made to his system
    were installing XMR 1.2.2 and adding Service Pak 3 to his system.
     
    
2879.4You need the ECO and the logical nameZUR01::ASHGGrahame Ash @RLEFri Feb 21 1997 11:2233
>    Using MAILbus 400, do we support the "per recipient private ext",  the "per
>    message envelope private ext" or do we support both? Microsoft told our
>    customer that it did a fix for the P1 private extensions for the "per
>    recipient private ext". We have a customer that is having a problem with
>    non-del's due to a problem with the private ext. They have ALL-IN-1 3.1,
>    MB400 2.0.68, XMR 1.2.2 and the Exhange Server has MS-EXCHANGE 4.0 SV-Pak3.
    
Microsoft are wrong - or if they're right, they're talking about something 
else! XMR (and ALL-IN-1 V3.2) generates a per-message private extension. This
is the one which was causing Exchange problems, and this is fixed in an
Exchange SP. Details can be found in the chefs::ms-exchange conf, I suspect. 

In your case, if you only have ALL-IN-1 V3.1, it must be XMR which is 
generating the extension. The latest ECO to XMR, which you seem to have, 
allows you to define a logical name to turn off the generation of this 
extension. 

There are per-recipient extensions present as well: common name, and Teletex 
o/r address terms for instance. These have not led to interworking problems 
with Exchange as far as I know.

    In this article, it just states that Exchange has a fix for the P1
    private extensions. The changes the customer has made to his system
    were installing XMR 1.2.2 and adding Service Pak 3 to his system.
     
Are you sure you have the XMR ECO? An anal/image on
sys$common:xmr$mrtox400.exe shows a version of "XMR V1.2-002". (13-may-1996)

If you have got this, have you defined the logical name correctly?:

$ define/nolog XMR$NO_P1EXTENSIONS 1

grahame