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

Conference 7.286::gateways

Title:Gateways between the EASYnet and other networks
Notice:NOTICE: You *must* read 1.1 before writing *anything* here!!!!!
Moderator:19472::reeves
Created:Mon Mar 17 1986
Last Modified:Fri May 23 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:2347
Total number of notes:10653

2346.0. "RMCs incorrectly translate the CC: field" by WRKSYS::INGRAHAM (Andy) Tue Apr 29 1997 12:52

There seems to be a new problem having to do with translation of
DECnet addresses in the CC: field, for outgoing mail sent through the
RMC gateways.

I sent a message from VMS Mail through US8RMC::, and CC:'d myself as
usual.  I sent it to a mail reflector of which I am a subscriber.

When the message came back to me from the mail reflector (again, via
US8RMC::), I was surprised to find the following among the "headers"
placed at the bottom of the message:

% From: wrksys::ingraham (Andy Ingraham)
% Cc: us8rmc::INGRAHAM

My take on this, is that, on the outgoing message, US8RMC correctly
converted VMS Mail's FROM: field to "ingraham@wrksys.ENET.dec.com
(Andy Ingraham)", but incorrectly converted the CC: field to
"ingraham@us8rmc.ENET.dec.com".

Today I discovered that at least two people tried replying to the Cc:
address, which, of course, fails.

My last message to the same maillist, on April 8, which went out and
back via US1RMC::, did not have this problem.


Here is the VMS Mail header from the original message, as CC:'d to
myself:

From:	WRKSYS::INGRAHAM     "Andy Ingraham" 28-APR-1997 11:42:32.01
To:	US8RMC::"si-list@silab.Eng.Sun.COM"
CC:	INGRAHAM
Subj:	...


And here is the VMS Mail header and the Internet headers from the
message I got back from the mail reflector:

From:	US8RMC::WRKSYS::INGRAHAM "Andy Ingraham" 28-APR-1997 12:23:03.73
To:	si-list@silab.Eng.Sun.COM
CC:	us8rmc::INGRAHAM
Subj:	...

...

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail13.digital.com by us8rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-17Jan97) id AA27081; Mon, 28 Apr 97 12:18:43 -0400
% Received: from venus.Sun.COM by mail13.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.5/1.0/WV) id MAA17634; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 12:04:29 -0400 (EDT)
% Received: from Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.25]) by venus.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id IAA22706; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 08:54:53 -0700
% Received: from silab.eng.sun.com by Eng.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3) id IAA13765; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 08:54:50 -0700
% Received: from Eng.Sun.COM by silab.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA13850; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 08:53:22 -0700
% Errors-To: si-admin@silab.Eng.Sun.COM
% Received: from saturn.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3) id IAA15580; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 08:52:34 -0700
% Received: from mail11.digital.com (mail11.digital.com [192.208.46.10]) by saturn.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id IAA04038 for <si-list@silab.Eng.Sun.COM>; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 08:52:50 -0700
% Received: from us8rmc.bb.dec.com by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.5/1.0/WV) id LAA08182; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 11:44:11 -0400 (EDT)
% Received: from WRKSYS.DECnet MAIL11D_V3 by us8rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-17Jan97) id AA24468; Mon, 28 Apr 97 11:40:12 -0400
% Date: Mon, 28 Apr 97 11:40:12 -0400
% Message-Id: <9704281540.AA24468@us8rmc.bb.dec.com>
% From: wrksys::ingraham (Andy Ingraham)
% To: si-list@silab.Eng.Sun.COM
% Cc: us8rmc::INGRAHAM
% Subject: ...


By the way, this is trivial, but why do the RMC's always uppercase the
"ENET" portion of the address (i.e., @wrksys.ENET.dec.com)?
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
2346.1bwasted.zk3.dec.com::thomasThe Code WarriorTue Apr 29 1997 13:535
No it didn't.  You probably CC:'ed to ingram without any nodename.
In that case the RMC will supply it's own to canonicalize the address.
[This is needed due to the way SMTP/Internet mail works.]

If you supplied node::ingram, it would have done the expected action.
2346.2BUSY::SLABBuzzword BingoTue Apr 29 1997 14:486
    
    	Ummm, supply a node:: in the CC: field in a message FROM VMS?
    
    	That shouldn't be necessary, should it?  Why would VMS try to tag
    	a router onto the CC: field if it didn't need it?
    
2346.3bwasted.zk3.dec.com::thomasThe Code WarriorTue Apr 29 1997 15:077
VMS doesn't use the CC line when you use the reply command so it's 
in effect a comment line.  (This is true for the To: line as well).

Unfortunately, To and CC do have significance in the Internet.  So
there's two choices: ignore them or try to deal with them.  Since
the mapping isn't exact, dealing is bound to lead to various wierd
interactions.
2346.4WRKSYS::INGRAHAMAndyTue Apr 29 1997 22:566
I didn't fill in the CC: address.  I just used SEND/SELF.

What I am explaining is apparently a new behavior.  It is something that
used to work "correctly" (from my point of view, and others too, I'm
sure), but now works incorrectly.  The gateway machine now fabricates a
befuddled address instead of the one that used to be correct.
2346.5BUSY::SLABCrash, burn ... when will I learn?Wed Apr 30 1997 03:447
    
    	Well, when you said you CC'd yourself I guess we stupidly assumed
    	that you CC'd yourself.  8^)
    
    	But what we should have assumed is that you have copy_self enabled
    	in your MAIL profile.
    
2346.6us8rmc is behaving badlyWRLMTS::VIGEANTWayne VigeantWed Apr 30 1997 13:493
    I just ran some tests on all the RMC's and US8RMC is the only one
    showing the behavior you're seeing. I'll take a look at US8RMC and fix
    it.
2346.7fixedWRLMTS::VIGEANTWayne VigeantWed Apr 30 1997 13:582
    Fixed - sorry about that. Someone new installed the RMC kit on US8RMC
    and forgot to change the mail11 DECnet object.
2346.8Before it was fixed ... (THANKS!)WRKSYS::INGRAHAMAndyWed Apr 30 1997 16:1040
I tried some experiments overnight.  They confirm that this was a
problem unique to US8RMC.

When a simple "username" appears in either the TO: or CC: fields of
VMS Mail, most of the RMC nodes apparently know how to extract the
implicit nodename (probably from where the outgoing message
originated), and construct a correct address for the Internet.  But
US8RMC doesn't.

	VMS Mail:	USERNAME

	us1rmc:		username@nodename.ENET.dec.com
	us2rmc:		username@nodename.ENET.dec.com
	us3rmc:		username@nodename.ENET.dec.com
	us4rmc:		username@nodename.ENET.dec.com
	us5rmc:		username@nodename.ENET.dec.com
	us6rmc:		username@nodename.ENET.dec.com
	us7rmc:		username@nodename.ENET.dec.com
	decpa:		username@nodename.ENET.dec.com
	crl:		username@nodename.enet.dec.com
	vbormc:		username@nodename.enet.dec.com
	us8rmc:		USERNAME@US8RMC.bb.dec.com
	jrdmax:		username@29.715.enet.dec.com


JRDMAX inserts a numeric nodename because its node database is WAY
the heck out of date, last updated over three and a half years ago! 
Since I'm not in Japan, I'll never use JRDMAX, so I shouldn't care;
but have there really been no DECnet changes there since 1993?

---

I also checked out the From: fields these RMCs insert in the message
they dump onto the Internet.  The odd one in the bunch is JRDMAX,
which uses:

	Andy Ingraham <ingraham@29.715.enet.dec-j.co.jp>

Hey, it even works!

2346.9VBORMC's outgoing "To:" field is weirdWRKSYS::INGRAHAMAndyWed Apr 30 1997 16:1118
When I send mail through most of the gateway systems, they convert
VMS Mail's TO: field from this:

	xxxRMC::"username@domain.com"

to this:

	To: username@domain.com

However, VBORMC converts it to this:

	To: "username@domain.com"@vbormc.vbo.dec.com

This may be "correct", but it's confusing to anyone receiving the
message who happens to check (or try to use) the To: field.

Why does it do this?

2346.10And while I'm at it ...WRKSYS::INGRAHAMAndyWed Apr 30 1997 16:118
Incoming mail through the RMC gateways put the Internet headers at the
bottom of the message with a reference to DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC ...

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======

Now that DECWRL is being retired, and already doesn't seem to be
accessible anymore, could someone please change this message?

2346.11WRLMTS::VIGEANTWayne VigeantWed Apr 30 1997 19:202
    Re .10 - Thanks for pointing this out. I have now changed it on
    us1-8rmc.