home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!INNOSOFT.COM!NED
- Errors-to: epmdf@YMIR.BITNET
- X-Envelope-to: PMDF-L@IRLEARN.BITNET
- X-VMS-To: IN%"SMITH%NYUMED.BITNET@ymir.claremont.edu"
- X-VMS-Cc: IPMDF
- MIME-version: 1.0
- Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
- Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
- Message-ID: <01GNMDX2AHTU95N96H@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 10:11:18 GMT
- Sender: PMDF Distribution List <PMDF-L@IRLEARN>
- From: Ned Freed <NED@INNOSOFT.COM>
- Subject: RE: Error in queueing bounced message.
- X-To: SMITH@NYUMED, IPMDF@YMIR
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pmdf-l
- Lines: 75
-
- > I have been noticing an odd ?error? recently where messages are apparently
- > being placed in the wrong queue when they get bounced. This isn't happening
- > all the time, of course. But this is now the third such message, and I would
- > like to figure out what is wrong.
-
- > This message was placed in the MR-LOCAL queue. It should be in the MTCP-LOCAL
- > queue to be delivered.
-
- Sorry -- this is incorrect. It should have gone into the MR_LOCAL queue and did
- just that. Here's my analysis of the message you presented.
-
- PLIM@MCCLB0.MED.NYU.EDU sent a message to plim@nyu-medical.NYU.EDU. This was
- queued to the mtcp_local channel, which is what your configuration specifies.
- This message then bounced -- the host name is illegal (NSLOOKUP confirms this).
- The bounce message is then sent to both the postmaster and to the originator
- PLIM@MCCLB0.MED.NYU.EDU.
-
- But the address PLIM@MCCLB0.MED.NYU.EDU is aliased back to
- plim@nyu-medical.NYU.EDU, so the bounce message itself bounces back to the
- bounce message's originator -- the postmaster.
-
- The postmaster therefore receives two slightly different copies of this
- bounce message.
-
- The postmaster is aliased to smith@nyu-medical.med.nyu.edu (note that this is a
- different domain name). This address is mapped to the mr_local channel. You
- therefore receive two copies of the bounce message via the mr_local channel and
- nobody else gets anything.
-
- All this precisely matches the way you have PMDF and PMDF-MR configured. The
- headers make it all fairly clear in and of themselves, but I cross checked it
- with your configuration to be sure.
-
- > What _I_ think happened is: I sent a mesage to PLIM which bounced.
-
- No -- PLIM sent a message to him-or-her-self which bounced. This then generated
- two copies of mail to the postmaster and nothing to anyone else since nobody
- else here has a valid address.
-
- > The error notifying me of the bounce is the message that is stuck.
-
- This is the first time you mention that things are stuck. From the looks of
- this message I suspect you have encountered the PMDF-MR problem with handling
- complex bounce messages. This has been discussed in this forum previously, and
- it is fixed in V4.1-10. (Side note for Bob Tinkelman: I checked this message in
- its various formats to be sure and it worked fine with -10)
-
- > The PMDF-MR channel is reached by sending mail to 'nyu-medical.med.nyu.edu'
- > using SMTP, and I have an alias in the aliases. file routing SMTP mail to
- > smith@nyu-medical.
-
- No, according to your configuration nyu-medical.med.nyu.edu is reached directly
- by an MR_LOCAL channel. Everyone else might reach it via SMTP (there is an MX
- for it) but you do not. There is no reason for mail to this domain to ever
- appear in your MTCP_LOCAL channel queue.
-
- The domain nyu-medical.nyu.edu is reached via MTCP_LOCAL according to your
- configuration (I suspect this is just the .EDU rule acting here) and this
- domain is therefore illegal both to you and to everyone else.
-
- > I have forwarded my VMS mail to the same address. I am
- > getting the non-delivery notice because I am also the postmaster. I am
- > including below the notification message sent to 'postmaster' and the queue
- > file from MR-LOCAL.
-
- This explains why you are getting notices on the MR_LOCAL channel. Nobody
- else sees them since there's no other legal address associated with the
- message.
-
- One final note. It is extremely unlikely that bounce messsages would go to
- different places than regular messages. There is nothing special about them,
- and the code used is identical (we are talking about the same bits in shared
- global memory here).
-
- Ned
-