🚀 go-pugleaf

The machine psuvax1 is on both USENET and BITNET.  It can be used as a gateway
as follows:

To send from USENET to BITNET use an address like:

		...!psuvax1!host.BITNET!usename

To send from BITNET to USENET something like the following might work:

		NOTE username%host.uucp at psuvax1

There is no warranty expressed or implied for the BITNET to USENET address.
It would appear that some BITNET mailers have a warped sense of what a valid
address is and what is allowed to appear in a mail header.

--Daniel Ehrlich
===============================================================================
CSNET:	  ehrlich@penn-state.csnet	USPS: The Pennsylvania State University
INTERNET: ehrlich@psuvax1.psu.edu	      Department of Computer Science
UUCP: 	  ...!ihnp4!psuvax1!ehrlich	      333 Whitmore Laboratory
BITNET:	  ehrlich@psuvax1.bitnet	      University Park, PA   16802
					BELL: (814) 863-1142

"The sky is blue so we know where to stop mowing."  Judge Harold T. Stone

Disclaimer:	The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not reflect the
opinions or policies of The Pennsylvania State University or the Department of
Computer Science.
===============================================================================

In article <2338@psuvax1.UUCP> ehrlich@psuvax1.UUCP (Dan Ehrlich) writes:
>
>The machine psuvax1 is on both USENET and BITNET.  It can be used as a gateway
>as follows:
>
>To send from USENET to BITNET use an address like:
>
>		...!psuvax1!host.BITNET!usename
>
>To send from BITNET to USENET something like the following might work:
>
>		NOTE username%host.uucp at psuvax1
>
>There is no warranty expressed or implied for the BITNET to USENET address.
>It would appear that some BITNET mailers have a warped sense of what a valid
>address is and what is allowed to appear in a mail header.

You are quite right there. NOTE is an ibm command and will not accept
username%host.uucp at psuvax1 because username%host.uucp will almost for
sure be greater than 8 characters which is the longest userid that exists
on any machine (at least to the thinking of ibm who think they ARE everybody)

If you don't have a mailer on your bitnet site you have to manually put
BSMTP headers (I think that stands for Batch Simple Mail Transfer Protocol)
on your mail and PUNCH it to MAILER at PSUVAX1. There are also execs to do
this for you (at least on IBM machines). I have one called CROSSNET EXEC
that I got from somewhere or other but I think it is only good for ARPA
CSNET MAILNET CCNET and MFENET addresses (ie it will send to the gateways
for those - not psuvax1) however it can probably be converted to uucp
addresses easily... (I havent bothered since we have a mailer) If anyone
wants this I can send it to them or they can get it off of one of the
servers on bitnet (NETSERV?)... maybe the latest version of crossnetexec
handles uucp - i dont know...

At least PSUVAX1 isn't as picky about the headers as WISCVM.... :-)
			scott
-- 
...{utzoo, decvax, ihnp4, cbosgd, utcsri, mnetor}!utcs!scott
scott%utcs.toronto.edu@csnet-relay.arpa
scott@utoronto.bitnet
scott@utcs.utoronto.bitnet

Disclaimer: The above is not actually the opinion of anyone at all but
	especially not the administration or staff of this institution.

In article <2338@psuvax1.UUCP>, ehrlich@psuvax1.UUCP (Dan Ehrlich) writes:
> ..
> To send from USENET to BITNET use an address like:
> 
> 		...!psuvax1!host.BITNET!usename

   We are also a gateway to bitnet now, ...!vu-vlsi!host.bitnet!username
but I have not been able to get from bitnet to here regardless of how
many ""'s I use in vms mail (e.g. To: bitnet%"uucp%vu-vlsi!perry"@vuvaxcom)

> There is no warranty expressed or implied for the BITNET to USENET address.

   You can say that again!

> The machine psuvax1 is on both USENET and BITNET.  It can be used as a 
> gateway as follows:
...
> It would appear that some BITNET mailers have a warped sense of what a 
> valid address is and what is allowed to appear in a mail header.

Hear hear.  I've been operating an Internet to BitNet gateway since 1984,
and I have quite a mugbook of some of the utter trash various BitNet mailers
seem to think is valid.  However, I do have a comment on the PSUVAX1 gateway.

We were recently out of touch with our usual Internet to UUCP gateway 
(due to unrelated problems) so I took the opportunity to try using PSUVAX1 
for some of my personal mail.  I got some advisories back.  None had any 
kind of "To:" field, a field required by RFC822 and used by my software to 
attempt to recover from BitNet's stupidity in truncating out-of-band addresses
to eight characters.  Needless to say my software didn't appreciate the lack 
of "To:" fields, and proceeded to break.  Fortunately I am notified of mail
system glitches and was appropriately chagrined to find said glitches 
traceable to mine own hand...

Regardless of the lack of order and standardization on BitNet I don't think
it wise for you to criticize while your own software is part of the problem.

Apologies in advance to anyone this might offend.

---------------

From: uucp@ihnp4.UUCP
Received: by psuvax1.UUCP (4.12/4.7)
        id AA01844; Tue, 4 Nov 86 19:34:47 est
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 19:34:47 est
Received: by ihnp4.ATT.COM id AA05988; 4 Nov 86 13:13:56 CST (Tue)
Subject: Warning from uucp
Apparently-To: psuvax1!UMD2.BITNET!ZBEN

(Message text.)

PSUVAX1 should have put a "To: ZBEN@UMD2" header field in.  UMD2 would have
done the same for PSUVAX1  :-)
-- 
                    umd5.UUCP    <= {seismo!umcp-cs,ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!zben
Ben Cranston zben @ umd2.UMD.EDU    Kingdom of Merryland Sperrows 1100/92
                    umd2.BITNET     "via HASP with RSCS"

ehrlich@psuvax1.UUCP (Dan Ehrlich) wrote: 
->
->The machine psuvax1 is on both USENET and BITNET.  It can be used as a gateway
->as follows:
->
->To send from BITNET to USENET something like the following might work:
->
->		NOTE username%host.uucp at psuvax1

This will never work.  NOTE (on VM/CMS systems only) causes a file to
be sent in NETDATA format.  Unless psuvax1 has recently learned about
how to deal with NETDATA, your message is likely to get trashed.  

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Henry Mensch /    <henry@garp.mit.edu>   /   ...!mit-eddie!garp!henry

In article <1375@umd5>, zben@umd5 (Ben Cranston) writes:
>                                I got some advisories back.  None had any 
> kind of "To:" field, a field required by RFC822 and used by my software...
> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 19:34:47 est
> Subject: Warning from uucp
> Apparently-To: psuvax1!UMD2.BITNET!ZBEN

Apparently-To: is a joke header that was in the original Berkeley
sendmail.  If you run /bin/mail and give it recipients as arguments,
and the message text on standard input -- the way pre-Internet unix
programs, like uucp, like to do -- /bin/mail just dumps the message to
sendmail, and sendmail, seeing that there is no To: line, inserts an
Apparently-To: line.  One of the first things I did to sendmail at Sun
was to fix this to just insert a To: line.  Berkeley didn't buy back
the change in 4.2 (I guess they like jokes) and I don't know if their
4.3 sendmail still has it or not.

Anyway, don't blame the Bitnet gateway, it's just Yet Another Sendmail-Ism.
-- 
John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa
Call +1 800 854 7179 or +1 714 540 9870 and order X3.159-198x (ANSI C) for $65.
Then spend two weeks reading it and weeping.  THEN send in formal comments! 

In article <1389@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
> Apparently-To: is a joke header

I agree with this - adding this header doesn't correct the
problem with the original headers, there is still no proper
destination header, so there doesn't seem to be a lot of
point adding it (its only done if the headers aren't rfc822
compliant, because of having no destination)

> One of the first things I did to sendmail at Sun
> was to fix this to just insert a To: line.

This is OK if the mail originated at your site, but otherwise
this certainly isn't the way to fix it.  This makes it impossible
to tell that the To: line wasn't there all the time, which is why
Eric chose Apparently-To - to make that obvious.  There's no way
a mailer somewhere down the path can insert a "To:" header that is
accurate - in most cases its likely to omit recipients, but it may
also include some who should have been in a bcc: header, and so not
shown at all.  (Apparently-To has this defect as well).

Given that the desire is to make the headers legal rfc822,
my suggestion is to add a header like

	bcc: (adressees unknown)

This satisfies rfc822 (bcc is one of the allowable destination
headers, and it need not carry any address information on it,
unllike the others) while not pretending to state any facts
that can't possibly be guaranteed.

Robert Elz		kre@munnari.oz

Initially, sendmail did insert To: lines instead of Apparently-To:
lines, and I got flamed at from 30 directions.  The main problem
is that the recipient list at any site other than the originating
site only has a subset of the address list.  People felt this was
misleading.  Apparently-To: was a compromise; I don't care much for
it either.

eric