Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-sdd!ucsdhub!celit!billd
From: billd@fps.com (Bill Davids_on)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: I need help understanding an SMTP problem
Message-ID: <4236@celit.fps.com>
Date: 23 Nov 89 01:26:36 GMT
References: <4173@celit.fps.com>
Reply-To: billd@fps.com (Bill Davids_on)
Organization: FPS Computing Inc., San Diego CA
Lines: 52

In article <4173@celit.fps.com> billd@fps.com (Bill Davids_on) writes:
[desciption of problems talking to Wollongong SMTP]

Thanks to all who have replied so far.  As soon as I resolve this
I will sumarize my solution.  A couple of people noted that I sent
"RCPT TO:xxx%yyy.decnet" to the Wollongong SMTP and said that
it needed an "@" symbol somewhere.  Well, I tried that.  In fact,
I connected to it with telnet and fed it about 10 different permutations
of addresses and the only thing it would ever take was
"RCPT TO:xxx%yyy.decnet@vax11".  It hated everything else.  It
*required* the "@vax11" on all addresses.

I've also gotten a several comments from people who hate Wollongong
software.  Here's a sample:

One person refered to it as "Will-go-wrong SMTP"

Another said: "Always assume that Wollongong is wrong.  They read
RFC's like the Devil reads the Bible."

From the same person: `"Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in
what you send." (Jon Postel, as quoted in RFC1122/3)  This is called the
Robustness Principle.  Wollongong can't even spell "Robustness"'

It looks like I have my work cut out for me.  One person who had
the same problem suggested a special rule in sendmail.cf.  I
can do that but I have to do it to every machine on our network
(about 200 machines).  I don't relish the thought much but this
may be the way I go (actually, I'll probably only do those
machines where people who talk to others on VMS normally work).

Another person suggested using MX records.  I'd have to upgrade
sendmail to do that.  I should do it anyway but I have a lot
of other priorities right now and going to a new sendmail has
been non-trivial in my experience.

Some other RFC's have been suggested as well (876,1122,1123).  RFC
876 paragraph 5.7.2 apparently supports Wollongong.

Thanks to the following people for responding and giving suggestions:

	andy@gollum.hcf.jhu.edu (Andy Poling)
	lindberg@cs.chalmers.se (Gunnar Lindberg)
	jack@piring.cwi.nl (Jack Jansen)
	enag@ucsd.uucp@ifi.uio.no (Erik T Naggum)
	isavax!cliffb@uunet.UU.NET (cliff bedore*)
	parmelee@wayback.cs.cornell.edu (Larry Parmelee)

If you replied and you're not listed then I didn't get your message
(as of 5:25pm PST Nov 22).

--Bill (I *wish* I was a sendmail guru) Davidson