Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR (Christian Huitema) (07/17/89)
Steve, I am just reading your revised document, and I found a little wording problem. The general tone of section "4.2.1. Encoding of Personal Name", page 40, is very "implementor friendly", with sentences like: "It seems desirable to utilise the "human" conventions for encoding these components. A syntax is proposed here.". You have to be a lot more specific. Just look at the following log: 220 Welcome to IDA Sendmail 5.59++/IDA-1.2.8 running on mirsa.inria.fr HELO pussy.inria.fr 250 Hello pussy.inria.fr, pleased to meet you MAIL From: <huitema> 250 <huitema>... Sender ok RCPT To: <Christian.Huitema@mirsa.inria.fr> 250 <Christian.Huitema@mirsa.inria.fr>... Recipient ok RCPT To: </G=Christian/S=Huitema/@mirsa.inria.fr> 554 </G=Christian/S=Huitema/@mirsa.inria.fr>... Cannot mail directly to files QUIT 221 mirsa.inria.fr closing connection or, if you prefer an exemple which is clearly not related to X.400: 220 sering.cwi.nl Sendmail 5.45/4.8 ready at Mon, 17 Jul 89 17:26:38 +0200 HELO mirsa.inria.fr 250 sering.cwi.nl Hello mirsa.inria.fr, pleased to meet you MAIL From: <huitema@mirsa.inria.fr> 250 <huitema@mirsa.inria.fr>... Sender ok RCPT To: <Daniel.Karrenberg@cwi.nl> 250 <Daniel.Karrenberg@cwi.nl>... Recipient ok RCPT To: </G=Daniel/S=Karrenberg/@cwi.nl> 554 </G=Daniel/S=Karrenberg/@cwi.nl>... Cannot mail directly to files RCPT To: <no_such_user@cwi.nl> 550 <no_such_user@cwi.nl>... User unknown QUIT 221 sering.cwi.nl closing connection I guess it is mostly a problem of wording, but it is clear that what you call the EBNF mapping should be absolutely avoided if the personal name mapping is possible. This would probably have much worse effects than the "OU ordering" misfit! The same is indeed true for all other mappings, like: 220 sering.cwi.nl Sendmail 5.45/4.8 ready at Mon, 17 Jul 89 17:30:04 +0200 HELO mirsa.inria.fr 250 sering.cwi.nl Hello mirsa.inria.fr, pleased to meet you MAIL From: <huitema@mirsa.inria.fr> 250 <huitema@mirsa.inria.fr>... Sender ok RCPT To: <dfk@sering.cwi.nl> 250 <dfk@sering.cwi.nl>... Recipient ok RCPT To: <dfk/OU=sering/@cwi.nl> 550 <dfk/OU=sering/@cwi.nl>... User unknown QUIT 221 sering.cwi.nl closing connection I have observed that, when mapping the envelope, using any EBNF encoding is in practice equivalent to bouncing the mail... Christian Huitema
pv@SUN.COM (Peter Vanderbilt) (07/17/89)
> I guess it is mostly a problem of wording, but it is clear that what > you call the EBNF mapping should be absolutely avoided if the personal > name mapping is possible. ... > I have observed that, when mapping the envelope, using any EBNF > encoding is in practice equivalent to bouncing the mail... (The "EBNF encoding" is the EBNF.std-or-address of 4.2.2 -- the slash separated form like /G=Christian/S=Huitema/@mirsa.inria.fr.) We've had no problems with these address forms. They are in use and are necessary for addressing arbitrary X.400 users. I would oppose wording to say that they should be "absolutely avoided". Pete P.S. Could your sendmail.cf's be configured incorrectly? The message you're getting usually comes from using the local mailer rather than using the mailer for the gateway. Or perhaps the addresses that work for you are real 822 addresses, not encoded-pn's.