alh@pyrnova (Alan Holzman) (11/11/89)
I've just seen a second occurence of the following : I finish reading/reviewing my mail and am ready to exit. I often leave between 3-12 active messages in my mailbox when I quit, rather than having them saved to the =received folder. When I did a "q" to quit Elm, a saw a system message that /usr/spool was full. When I tried to then re-enter Elm or even use bsd Mail, all of those messages were gone ! 1.) Is there something we have done wrong in configuring Elm ? 2.) Is this a known bug ? 3.) Is there a definite fix in PL11,12,13 or Elm 2.3 ? 4.) Should I start allowing all messages to go to the =received folder rather than risk a re-occurance ? (that would be a real pain ... ) Have others had the same thing happen ? We are running on a Pyramid MIServer with 1 cpu & OSx 5.0 ...
sfreed@gauss.unm.edu (Steve Freed) (11/13/89)
In article <90691@pyramid.pyramid.com>, alh@pyrnova (Alan Holzman) writes: > When I did a "q" to > quit Elm, a saw a system message that /usr/spool was full. When I > tried to then re-enter Elm or even use bsd Mail, all of those > messages were gone ! This a problem in elm. It has been mentions several times, but nobody seems to want to address it...at least as far as I know. I have asked how sendmail and berkeley mail handles this but I have recieved no response. I am to assume that nobody knows. I would tackle the problem myself, but my C programming skills are so minimal that I would do more damage than good. In my humble opinion, elm is a wonderful program, but this is a SERIOUS bug. Steve.
alh@pyrnova (Alan Holzman) (11/16/89)
In article <90691@pyramid.pyramid.com> alh@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Alan Holzman) writes: > > I've just seen a second occurence of the following : > > I finish reading/reviewing my mail and am ready to exit. I often > leave between 3-12 active messages in my mailbox when I quit, rather > than having them saved to the =received folder. When I did a "q" to > quit Elm, a saw a system message that /usr/spool was full. When I > tried to then re-enter Elm or even use bsd Mail, all of those > messages were gone ! > > 1.) Is there something we have done wrong in configuring Elm ? > > 2.) Is this a known bug ? > > 3.) Is there a definite fix in PL11,12,13 or Elm 2.3 ? > > 4.) Should I start allowing all messages to go to the =received > folder rather than risk a re-occurance ? (that would be a real > pain ... ) > > Have others had the same thing happen ? We are running on a Pyramid > MIServer with 1 cpu & OSx 5.0 ... > > Syd ; Could you or someone else please respond to this and the number of other postings regarding this problem. If there is currently no fix available, or if a fix is in the works for x weeks / months in the future and also what your recommendation is for today. Should we all do as I suggest in item # 4 or are their other workarounds ? Thanks very much for your help ; - Al
syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) (11/16/89)
alh@pyrnova (Alan Holzman) writes: :In article <90691@pyramid.pyramid.com> alh@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Alan Holzman) writes: :> :> I've just seen a second occurence of the following : :> :> I finish reading/reviewing my mail and am ready to exit. I often :> leave between 3-12 active messages in my mailbox when I quit, rather :> than having them saved to the =received folder. When I did a "q" to :> quit Elm, a saw a system message that /usr/spool was full. When I :> tried to then re-enter Elm or even use bsd Mail, all of those :> messages were gone ! :Syd ; : Could you or someone else please respond to this and the number of :other postings regarding this problem. If there is currently no fix available, :or if a fix is in the works for x weeks / months in the future and also what :your recommendation is for today. Should we all do as I suggest in item # 4 :or are their other workarounds ? Ok, why I don't respond each time this crops up is that it is in the monthly posting: EB09 Elm(1) does not check for failed writes and closes of files. This can have a disastrous affect if /tmp runs out of space. In this case, elm(1) might copy a mailbox to a /tmp file and then back. Since elm(1) wouldn't detect that the copy to the temp file failed, the temp file would wind up empty, thereby causing the copy back to the mailbox to lose all messages. This is an 'OLD' bug, as you can tell by its low number. There is no decent workaround. In fact, without a complete rewrite to Elm, trying to fix it is a patchwork problem, you might get some of the places it occurs, but not all of them. I have received one patch that has yet to be processed that addresses part of the problem. I have yet to reveiw it to see how much of the problem it addresses. Elm can run into trouble and loose all your messages if either /tmp runs out of space or /usr/spool/mail (or /usr/mail) runs out of space. If /tmp runs out of space, an emergency exit ('x' command) will at least not loose the messages, as it won't do a copy back. If /usr/spool/mail runs out of space, the problem is worse, as mail is going to get lost anyway, as there is no room to append to your mailbox for incoming messages either. The best workaround is to try and manage things so that those file systems don't run out of space, and I know that can be difficult. I am open to patches (please let me get the one I have out first so you don't duplicate effort) that solve the problem. However, no matter how major you feel it is, its a lower priority one on my books than the misaddressing problem: EB26 When using an address of the form "node!user@domain", the ! has higher precedence than the @ when elm resolves the ad- dress. The @ should have higher precedence. I feel this way since proper administration of the file system sizes should prevent running out of space in /usr/spool/mail. However, EB26 causes mail to go astray. -- ===================================================================== Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or {bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235
chip@vector.Dallas.TX.US (Chip Rosenthal) (11/18/89)
In article <1989Nov16.145450.14312@DSI.COM> syd@DSI.COM writes: >However, no matter how major you feel it is, its a lower priority one on >my books than the misaddressing problem [the bug is that foo!bar@bax is handled wrong] It's very, very tempting to fix this problem by totally ripping the address resolution stuff out of Elm, and insisting upon an MTA which can deal with it. Maybe even bundle smail2.5 with Elm. Actually, this isn't a half-crocked idea. (All right, maybe it is half-crocked, but it isn't *totally* crocked. :-) I don't know if anybody is maintaining smail2.5, but it most definately does have a future. Although I run smail3 on "vector" (I use it's features heavily, especially SMTP), for "chinacat" I will probably run smail2.5/deliver. This gives me all the capability I need at a fraction of the complexity. -- Chip Rosenthal / chip@vector.Dallas.TX.US / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337 Someday the whole country will be one vast "Metroplex" - Zippy's friend Griffy ===> addr changes 11/22 to "chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG" (texbell!chinacat!chip)
tanner@cdis-1.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) (11/18/89)
In article <1989Nov16.145450.14312@DSI.COM>, syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) writes:
) EB26 When using an address of the form "node!user@domain", the !
) has higher precedence than the @ when elm resolves the ad-
) dress. The @ should have higher precedence.
Actually, mixed @/! addresses are frowned upon. Each mailer is free
to mis-handle them in the most convenient manner.
--
Mulroney: "Cut trains. Drive in | {bpa,uunet}!cdin-1!cdis-1!tanner
Canada. We need the acid rain." | {attctc gatech!uflorida}!ki4pv!cdis-1!tannersyd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) (11/20/89)
tanner@cdis-1.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) writes: :In article <1989Nov16.145450.14312@DSI.COM>, syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) writes: :) EB26 When using an address of the form "node!user@domain", the ! :) has higher precedence than the @ when elm resolves the ad- :) dress. The @ should have higher precedence. :Actually, mixed @/! addresses are frowned upon. Each mailer is free :to mis-handle them in the most convenient manner. I beg to differ, RFC976 is quite specific as to how to handle them. (RFC976 is how to convert @ addresses to ! for uucp use.) Elm is supposed to be a complient mailer, so it should follow the standard. -- ===================================================================== Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or {bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235
mark@jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn) (11/21/89)
In article <1989Nov19.174411.13834@DSI.COM> syd@DSI.COM writes: >I beg to differ, RFC976 is quite specific as to how to handle them. >(RFC976 is how to convert @ addresses to ! for uucp use.) >Elm is supposed to be a complient mailer, so it should follow the >standard. I beleive that if you read RFC976 closely you will notice that it gives a specific RECOMMENDATION as to how hybrid (a.k.a "mixed") addresses should be handled, but stops short of actually specifying how it shall be done in standard conforming software. Moreover, RFC976 mentions that both interpretations of hybrid addressing are potentially useful. There is a subtle differentiation between a standard specifying how something shall be done vs. recommending how something should be done, but ultimately, if a recommendation is not adhered to, an application can still be considered to be standard conforming. -- Mark H. Colburn mark@Minnetech.MN.ORG Open Systems Architects, Inc.
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (11/23/89)
In article <1989Nov16.145450.14312@DSI.COM> syd@DSI.COM writes: |[...] |EB26 When using an address of the form "node!user@domain", the ! | has higher precedence than the @ when elm resolves the ad- | dress. The @ should have higher precedence. Eeek! I hope I misunderstand! The proper resolution (so say I, among others) is to group "(node!user)@domain" such that a route thru uucp for example will go "domain!node!user". If you mean "node!(user@domain)", then *shriek* wrong wrong wrong No doubt this is religion to some, but the problem is that a lot of mailer software in use has the first usage, not the second. Water, -- ^^ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \**/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _/ >_ Ceci n'est pas une | - Rene Macwrite
eastick@me.utoronto.ca (Doug Eastick) (11/24/89)
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes: >In article <1989Nov16.145450.14312@DSI.COM> syd@DSI.COM writes: >|[...] >|EB26 When using an address of the form "node!user@domain", the ! >| has higher precedence than the @ when elm resolves the ad- >| dress. The @ should have higher precedence. > Eeek! I hope I misunderstand! > The proper resolution (so say I, among others) is > to group "(node!user)@domain" such that a route > thru uucp for example will go "domain!node!user". > If you mean "node!(user@domain)", then *shriek* > wrong wrong wrong > No doubt this is religion to some, but the problem > is that a lot of mailer software in use has the > first usage, not the second. This problem is evident in the "g" function (group reply). Last week, I received a letter in which I was a Cc: recipient. The letter was from a user @csri.toronto.edu to several others at different departments within the university (me, physics, etc.). When I used the "g", the To: line became something like: To: csri.toronto.edu!user@csri.toronto.edu, csri.toronto.edu!joe@physics.toronto.edu, csri.toronto.edu!eastick@me.toronto.edu Elm forced each reply thru csri. *Our* mailer sent each letter to the host after the '@', who in turn sent it to csri, which complained about not knowing the user directly after the '!'. Elm's handling of reply paths doesn't seem to work that well with UofToronto's mailer (which is quite RFCeverything compliant). >Water, >-- > ^^ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. >w \**/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu > `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET >_/ >_ Ceci n'est pas une | - Rene Macwrite -- Doug Eastick UUCP: uunet!utai!me!eastick Mechanical Engineering eastick@me.utoronto.ca
tanner@cdis-1.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) (11/29/89)
In article <1989Nov19.174411.13834@DSI.COM> syd@DSI.COM writes:
) I beg to differ, RFC976 is quite specific as to how to handle them.
) (RFC976 is how to convert @ addresses to ! for uucp use.)
From RFC976 of Feb-1986, page 3, para 1, ln 6..8:
a hybrid address with a ! to the left of an @ is ambiguous:
it could be interpreted as (a!b)@c.d or a!(b@c.d).
It then goes on to cite conflicting standards on the interpretation
of mixed "addresses" and to advise shunning of such things.
--
Mulroney: "Cut trains. Drive in | {bpa,uunet}!cdin-1!cdis-1!tanner
Canada. We need the acid rain." | {attctc gatech!uflorida}!ki4pv!cdis-1!tannerzeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) (11/30/89)
>) I beg to differ, RFC976 is quite specific as to how to handle them. >) (RFC976 is how to convert @ addresses to ! for uucp use.) > >From RFC976 of Feb-1986, page 3, para 1, ln 6..8: > a hybrid address with a ! to the left of an @ is ambiguous: > it could be interpreted as (a!b)@c.d or a!(b@c.d). > >It then goes on to cite conflicting standards on the interpretation >of mixed "addresses" and to advise shunning of such things. If you read down a few more paragraphs, you find that RFC976 says "we recommend that any host that accepts hybrid addresses apply the (a!b)@c.d interpretation". Seems pretty clear. RFC1123, in section 5.2.16 makes it clear that @ has precedence over !. It even recommends precedence for ! over %. -- Jon Zeeff <zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> Branch Technology <zeeff@b-tech.mi.org>
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/01/89)
In article <BCLL4K@b-tech.mi.org> zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes: > RFC1123, in section 5.2.16 makes it clear that @ has precedence over > !. It even recommends precedence for ! over %. Well, before you change ELM to match, make it a configuration option. We depend pretty heavily on having ! take precedence here, due to limits in the OpenNET mail software. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM
tanner@cdis-1.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) (12/05/89)
In article <BCLL4K@b-tech.mi.org>, zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes:
) If you read down a few more paragraphs, you find that RFC976 says "we
) recommend that any host that accepts hybrid addresses apply the
) (a!b)@c.d interpretation". Seems pretty clear.
Very clear indeed. They are saying that there is no requirement
that it be done either way. That is the difference between a
recommendation and a requirement.
Given that it's only a recommendation, and that RFC976 admits that
some hosts can't do it that way, it would seem silly to classify
failure to do it that way as a "bug" needing "fixing".
--
Mulroney: "Cut trains. Drive in | {bpa,uunet}!cdin-1!cdis-1!tanner
Canada. We need the acid rain." | {attctc gatech!uflorida}!ki4pv!cdis-1!tannerzeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) (12/06/89)
>) If you read down a few more paragraphs, you find that RFC976 says "we >) recommend that any host that accepts hybrid addresses apply the >) (a!b)@c.d interpretation". Seems pretty clear. >Given that it's only a recommendation, and that RFC976 admits that >some hosts can't do it that way, it would seem silly to classify >failure to do it that way as a "bug" needing "fixing". It would be silly to have elm not follow the recommendations and rules unless there is some very good reason for doing so. Make it a configuration option if some sites need non-standard rfc violating behavior. Doing anything other than (a!b)@c.d violates rfc822 rules (which basically say that the address follows the @ and ! means nothing special). Elm claims to be "100% correct according to the rfc822". -- Jon Zeeff <zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> Branch Technology <zeeff@b-tech.mi.org>
stevesc@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Schonberger) (12/12/89)
>Doing anything other than (a!b)@c.d violates rfc822 rules (which >basically say that the address follows the @ and ! means nothing >special). Elm claims to be "100% correct according to the rfc822". Well, since I happen to work at a site which only pays attention to ! as a separator (and % for site-local mail), it would be nice to have that legal but non-reccomended behavior as a (non-default) configuration option. Then the sites that follow the reccomended way can have it without any effort, and sites that follow other legal interpretations can use them without major effort. -- Steve Schonberger microsoft!stevesc@uunet.uu.net "Working under pressure is the sugar that we crave" --A. Lamb