WOOD@HARVLAW1.BITNET (07/29/86)
Just for grins, I'm resending my message on THE APPARENT BITNET SUBJECT LINE
via a different gateway, WITH the headers of this message, as returned by
1) our local bitnet mail handler, and
2) the gateway I used in sending the first message
I hope this will illustrate the problem.
The original version, with header, was prepared by BMAIL.COM. My machine,
HARVLAW1.BITNET, is a VAX/VMS using the Jnet software (by Joiner Associates,
I believe) for our vms-bitnet interface. As you can see, it has a 'proper'
SMTP mail header. Neither it nor this message is double-spaced. I have
prefixed each line of the included messages with "> " for clarity.
I have added a few other notes at the end of this message.
*** Original message: -------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: 28 JUL 86 13:53-EST
> From: WOOD@HARVLAW1.BITNET
> To: info-law@csl.sri.com
> Cc: WOOD@HARVLAW1.BITNET
> Subject: THE APPARENT BITNET SUBJECT LINE
>
> The relative bizarreness of subject: headers in mail from bitnet sites
> can stem from a number of possible sources:
> 1) the type of mail system used on the bitnet host
> 2) whether BITNET users are using the SENDGATE.EXEC (on IBM)
> or BMAIL.COM (on vax/vms) command procedures.
> 3) What gateway the message is sent through.
> Many mail systems do not use the SMTP headers; however users may avail
> themselves of kluges to get around this by assembling appropriate headers
> (that's what SENDGATE and BMAIL do).
> BUT even if a proper header is assembled, some GATEWAY software will
> munge it and stuff in the bogus "BITNET MAIL FOLLOWS" 'pseudo-subject'
> line. I believe that gateways using BSMTP will do this. Other gateway
> software simply IGNORES the subject line altogether. UGH.
> I agree that bogons like this should be sought out and destroyed,
> but it's hard to find out who to complain to. Gateways are fragile critters
> at best, especially when we can't even get agreement on uniform usage of
> something as simple as SMTP headers.
> In any case, it is utterly futile to complain TO bitnet users
> about the sorry conditions of the BITNET-othernet gateways, without offering
> some advice.
>
> [for my part, bitnet users on vax/vms machines using jnet software
> can use my version of BMAIL.COM; it will build nice headers, but
> the gateways it uses may not be best for your sites. Send me your
> bitnet address and I'll send a copy. My bitnet address (in case
> you can't find it in the long header above) is WOOD@HARVLAW1 .]
>
> George Wood
> Project Pericles
> Harvard Law School.
>
**** header as echoed by jnet (BMAIL sends a CC to sender via jnet):
> From: BITNET%"WOOD@HARVLAW1.BITNET" 28-JUL-1986 13:53
> To: WOOD
> Subj: THE APPARENT BITNET SUBJECT LINE
>
> Received: From HARVLAW1(WOOD) by HARVLAW1 with RSCS id 1384
> for WOOD@HARVLAW1; Mon, 28-JUL-1986 13:53 EST
> Date: 28 JUL 86 13:53-EST
> From: WOOD@HARVLAW1.BITNET
> To: info-law@csl.sri.com
> Cc: WOOD@HARVLAW1.BITNET
> Subject: THE APPARENT BITNET SUBJECT LINE
>
> The relative bizarreness of subject: headers in mail from bitnet sites
> can stem from a number of possible sources:
...
**** remainder of message deleted
**** header of message as echoed by harvard gateway:
>
> From: jnet%HARVISR::BSMTP 28-JUL-1986 13:55
> To: WOOD
> Subj:
>
> Received: From HARVISR(BSMTP) by HARVLAW1 with RSCS id 7555
> for WOOD@HARVLAW1; Mon, 28-JUL-1986 13:55 EST
> Received: from HARVLAW1 by harvisr.harvard.edu with BITNET; Mon, 28 Jul 86 13:
53
> :08 EDT
> Date: 28 JUL 86 13:53-EST
>
> From: WOOD%harvlaw1.harvard.edu@harvunxw.BITNET
> To: info-law@csl.sri.com
> Cc: WOOD@harvlaw1.harvard.edu
> Subject: THE APPARENT BITNET SUBJECT LINE
>
>
> The relative bizarreness of subject: headers in mail from bitnet sites
>
> can stem from a number of possible sources:
>
> 1) the type of mail system used on the bitnet host
>
Note that in addition to losing the subject line, the gateway seems to insert
additional newlines into the body of the message, and changes the CC: address
from
> Cc: WOOD@HARVLAW1.BITNET
to
> Cc: WOOD@harvlaw1.harvard.edu
Which is used to send the message back to me. What I find odd about this
is that the gateway is smart enough to put an apparently good address
into the cc field, but somehow LOST the subject line in what it returned
to me. Arrgh.
I hope this will be my last comment on this subject on INFO-LAW. Sorry if
I have offended anyone by responding to it in the first place. INFO-LAW
is probably not the best place for this kind of discussion.
If anyone out there knows who to send this kind of complaint to, please
let me know. I'd really like better mail handling between networks.
If possible, respond directly to me rather than via INFO-LAW.
George Wood
Senior Research Associate,
Expert Systems Development Group,
Project Pericles,
Harvard Law School
Decnet(Harvard): WOOD@HULAW1
Bitnet: WOOD@HARVLAW1
Arpanet: (?) WOOD@HARVLAW1.HARVARD.EDU (??) or WOOD%HARVLAW1.BITNET@WISCVM