phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (01/12/87)
Here's another problem I have with the new mail system. When something
comes bouncing back, I have no idea what happened. I can see that the
To: field was csvax.caltech.edu, but how did ames get into the act?
If there were a field which showed the expanded address handed off to
my neighbor, I might see how the mailer was trying to route the mail,
I might have a chance of understanding what went wrong and getting the
mail through. In the old way, I knew how things were being routed. If
something came back because the route was bad, I could go look in the
maps and try another route. Now I know nothing and am stuck. And who
changed csvax.caltech.edu to csvax.caltech.edu.tcp? Is that correct?
Actually, when I grovel around in the uucp LOGFILE, I can see that the
mail came in via rutgers but was routed out through nike. Nike claims
to know cit-vax in the map data but cit-vax doesn't know nike. It
would seem reasonable to guess that nike's claim to know cit-vax is
incorrect. But it's not very clear from the bounced mail I got back.
Should I have to grovel around to figure this out? I suppose another
thing is to ask sendmail how it will process the address. But it's not
very obvious how to do this. Maybe things are made worse by the way
that ames is acting for nike. The following is from the uucp LOGFILE:
UUCP riacs (1/11-13:17-17652) \
rutgers!cit-vax!csvax.caltech.edu!trent XQT (rmail phil)
phil lll-crg (1/11-22:19-20799) XQT QUE'D \
(rmail nike!cit-vax!csvax.caltech.edu!trent)
And this is the bounced mail:
From lll-crg!ames!postmaster Sun Jan 11 22:38:33 1987
Received: by amdcad.AMD.COM (4.12/smail2.1/11-19-86)
id AA20867; Sun, 11 Jan 87 22:38:30 pst
Received: Sun, 11 Jan 87 22:27:27 pst by lll-crg.ARPA (4.12/)
id AA25612; Sun, 11 Jan 87 22:27:27 pst
Received: Sun, 11 Jan 87 22:27:16 PST by ames.arpa (5.45/1.2)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 87 22:27:16 PST
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <lll-crg!ames!postmaster>
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
Message-Id: <8701120627.AA28625@ames.arpa>
To: <amdcad!phil>
Status: R
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 cit-vax.uucp!csvax.caltech.edu.tcp... 550 Host unknown
550 <trent@cit-vax.uucp!csvax.caltech.edu>... Host unknown
----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: Sun, 11 Jan 87 22:27:16 PST by ames.arpa (5.45/1.2)
Received: Sun, 11 Jan 87 22:27:11 PST by ames-titan.arpa (5.45/1.2)
Received: Sun, 11 Jan 87 22:25:07 pst by lll-crg.ARPA (4.12/)
id AA25587; Sun, 11 Jan 87 22:25:07 pst
Received: by amdcad.AMD.COM (4.12/smail2.1/11-19-86)
id AA20794; Sun, 11 Jan 87 22:19:50 pst
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 87 22:19:50 pst
From: lll-crg!amdcad.AMD.COM!phil (Phil Ngai)
Message-Id: <8701120619.AA20794@amdcad.AMD.COM>
To: trent@csvax.caltech.edu
Subject: Re: Older Hondas and Unleaded Gas?
Union 76 is 89. Octane doesn't translate directly into power in most
cars, I would imagine. That is, for any particular car, an increase
in octane past a certain point doesn't do anything. Cars with antiknock
sensors which retard timing are an exception. I wonder about
computerized fuel injection systems.
--
My left foot is digital, my right foot is analog.
Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,hplabs,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com