LEONID@TAURUS.BITNET (04/20/88)
The problem I am going to describe below has occured since we installed PSU UREP version 3.2 with it's BSMTP code. This has occured mostly with old versions of Columbia (crosswell) MAILER running on VM, and lately it occures with CUNYVM too. It seems that the UREP code does not understand the full command set of BSMTP and upon receiving something it cannot interpret it drops the message and send a REPLY file back to the offending MAILER. I have not succeeded to capture the original BSMTP command sequence that caused the problem, but at the end of this message I supply the REPLY filw. The current situation is that mail send by CUNYVM (and others) to TAURUS.BITNET directly get dropped, and mail send to MATH.TAU.AC.IL works fine since it passes through TAUNIVM's MAILER. As it seems to me, the solution would be: a) to fix the UREP code (!) b) to remove extravagant commands and parameters from FAl and Columbia Mailers. Of course a) is preferrable, but I can do it, the UREP code is totally undocumented, not a single line of comment! I would appreciate any help. Please reply directly to me: leonid@taurus.bitnet leonid%math.tau.ac.il@cunyvm.cuny.edu ---------------------- HELO TAURUS.BITNET VERB ON MAIL FROM:<> RCPT TO:<mailer@cunyvm.bitnet> DATA 220 taurus.bitnet Batch Simple Mail Transfer Ready 250 OK 250 OK 504 Command parameter not implemented 503 Bad sequence of commands 354 Start Mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF> 503 Bad sequence of commands 221 taurus.bitnet closing transmission . QUIT ---------------------------
patterso@hardees.rutgers.edu (Ross Patterson) (04/25/88)
Leonid, The failing BSMTP command appears to be the "MAIL FROM:<>" command, which is hardly gratuitous. It is persfectly reasonable SMTP as well as BSMTP, and means "Under no circumstances are you to attempt to reply to this mail. Should you find an error, simply drop the mail without comment." It is also well known that some mailers (including, I belive, the Crosswell) don't like this form. Someone from the Weizmann Institute posted a fix for the Crosswell code to the XMAILER list some time ago, perhaps UREP needs a similar fix? Ross Patterson Rutgers University
owens@psuvax1.psu.edu (Robert Michael Owens) (04/26/88)
In article <8804251118.AA06988@jade.berkeley.edu>, patterso@HARDEES.RUTGERS.EDU (Ross Patterson) writes:
+ Leonid,
+
+ The failing BSMTP command appears to be the "MAIL FROM:<>" command,
+ which is hardly gratuitous. It is persfectly reasonable SMTP as well
+ as BSMTP, and means "Under no circumstances are you to attempt to
+ reply to this mail. Should you find an error, simply drop the mail
+ without comment." It is also well known that some mailers (including,
+ I belive, the Crosswell) don't like this form. Someone from the
+ Weizmann Institute posted a fix for the Crosswell code to the XMAILER
+ list some time ago, perhaps UREP needs a similar fix?
+
+ Ross Patterson
+ Rutgers University
the bsmtp router which comes as part of urep supports "mail from:<>".
history (1983) - originally only "trusted mailers/routers" or "local
user agents" were suppose to be able to send mail to/through a BSMTP
mailer/router/gateway. i.e., BSMTP was originally NOT to be a user
protocol. BSMTP routers were suppose to have been written for the
different systems on bitnet. it never happened. however many users
were willing to wrap their own BSTMP so they could use one of the
bitnet gateways (i.e., psuvax1). it was impractical (and unwise)
to register each such user. instead a router/gateway is suppose to
check BSMTP mail from non trusted users to make sure they aren't
lieing about who the mail is from. many of the gateways on bitnet
simply don't do this. the code supplied with urep does. trusted
mailers must be listed in a file "DOMAINS" which also specifies
the domain naming tree.
owens