Archive-Date: XXX, 14 Feb 1995 09:36:21 -0400 From: volz@process.com (Bernie Volz) Subject: Re: Is vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.tcpware a live newsgroup ?y Message-ID: <1995Feb14.093621.940@process.com> Date: 14 Feb 95 09:36:21 -0400 References: <3hlujr$41p@tattoo.sccsi.com> In article <3hlujr$41p@tattoo.sccsi.com>, jleslie@dmccorp.com (Jerry Leslie) writes: > Is the vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.tcpware a working newsgroup ? I've attempted > to reference it from two different Internet Service Providers and could post > a test message from both ISPs. But the only other article I've seen was the > ad whose subject was " GUARANTEED CREDIT REPAIR BY LAW FIRM" which was > posted from within the domain of Canter & Siegel. > Yes, vmsnet.networks.tcp-ip.tcpware is supposed to be a working newsgroup. If you do have trouble posting to it (ie, the messages don't appear to show up), please let me know (volz@process.com). You can also CC support@process.com. The newsgroup is for the discussion of the TCPware for OpenVMS (TCP/IP networking) software product from Process Software Corporation. - Bernie Volz Process Software Corporation ================================================================================ Archive-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 15:56:35 GMT Subject: SMTP problem now fixed. Message-ID: From: mikewd@leica.co.uk (Mike Wilmot-Dear) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 15:56:35 GMT Further to my previous posting concerning a problem with the TCPWare for VMS SMTP server losing mail if a users disk was unavailable, Process S/W have now produced a patch which solves this problem by queuing the mail for later delivery. We've been running the patch here for a few days and it seems to be working fine. The patch apparently also means that mail for onward DECNet delivery will get queued if the initial delivery is unsuccessful (although I don't use that here so haven't tested this). I'd like to say that once I was in contact with Process S/W directly they were as helpful as I have come to expect (and even asked for my comments on their proposed solution). So I suspect the original, rather dismissive, response to my complaint may have just been down lack of communication at our local TCPWare distributor. I think in future I will try e-mailing Process direct if I don't get any response through the official channel via the distributor. I would suggest however that the original bug might have been noticed sooner if the SMTP server by default kept a log file and recorded errors in this (or even sent them as OPCOM messages). The current arrangement measn you have to explicitly turn on logging and you then get a new version of the log file each time the SMTP server is spawned (which is often for each message) so it's rather hard to spot errors. Anyway I would suggest anyone running TCPWare SMTP should get the patch. Mike. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Wilmot-Dear (MW342) e-mail: mikewd@leica.co.uk Leica Cambridge Ltd. Tel: +44 1223-411411 (x347) Clifton Road Fax: +44 1223-210692 Cambridge, CB1 3QH, UK