Look, We have over 500 subscribers to MLA-L (from bitnet and internet
sites arounds the world). The ONE ongoing and insurmountable problem
seems to be with addresses at DUKE. This clearly means that the problem
is at DUKE!!!!!! We have NOT encountered a similar problem with the other
505 addresses on the MLA-L list. I am going to delete the addresses from
Duke, and will NOT allow them to be subscribed to MLA-L until there is
some assurance that the Duke network is working correctly.
Cordially,
A. Ralph Papakhian, Music Library (Co-Listowner for MLA-L@IUBVM)
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
(812) 855-2970 [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Richard Griscom
Head, Music Library, Univ. of Louisville
Phone: (502) 588-5659
Ralph & Mary (if I got the latter's address correct):
Here is the DUKEMVS postmaster's response. Any ideas?
*** Forwarding note from DANGER --DUKEMVS 03/20/92 14:32 ***
Received: from DUKEVM.AC.DUKE.EDU by ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)
with TCP; Fri, 20 Mar 92 14:32:43 EST
Received: from DUKEMVS.BITNET by DUKEVM.AC.DUKE.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)
with BSMTP id 0230; Fri, 20 Mar 92 14:31:11 EST
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 14:31 EST
To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Delivery error notice sent to list MLA-L
Hi Richard,
> To: [log in to unmask]
> From: [log in to unmask]
the above shows the error in all of this. Note the this is an
automatic response when ever a mail msg comes to this node
and there is no such userid or userid@address available at this
node.
if you look at the lines around this you will see....
> Reply-To: "Music Library Association Mailing List" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sender: "Music Library Association Mailing List" <[log in to unmask]>
> From: "Mary.Black_Shier" <[log in to unmask]>
which shows that the msg was sent in error to DUKEMVS in the first
place! This can happen when there is a problem with the routing tables
at the sending node, in this case MLA-L@IUBVM....
perhaps your routing tables have an internal error? If you need help
with VM mailer/listserv's I can send you the name/address of
our VM system programmer....
Good luck! Mail problems are ALWAYS a real PAIN!!!
Mike
> Richard Griscom
> Head, Music Library, Univ. of Louisville
> Phone: (502) 588-5659
> Mike,
> Here is one of three error notices that I have received since setting
> the dukemvs IDs back to MAIL. If you have any ideas, please let me know.
> For the time being, I am returning the addresses to the NOMAIL state.
>
> Thanks,
> Dick
> *** Forwarding note from LISTSERV--IUBVM 03/20/92 13:43 ***
> Received: from iubvm.ucs.indiana.edu by ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU (Mailer R2.08
> R208004) with BSMTP id 0777; Fri, 20 Mar 92 13:43:30 EST
> Received: by IUBVM (Mailer R2.08) id 4807; Fri, 20 Mar 92 10:12:46 EST
> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 10:12:45 -0500
> Subject: Delivery error notice sent to list MLA-L
> To: Ralph Papakhian <[log in to unmask]>,
> Richard Griscom <[log in to unmask]>
>
> The enclosed mail file, found in the MLA-L reader and shown under the spoolid
> 0913 in the console log, has been identified as a possible delivery error
> notice for the following reason: mail subject indicates a delivery problem.
>
> ------------------------- Message in error (40 lines)
------------------------
> Received: from DUKEMVS.BITNET (POSTMAN) by iubvm.ucs.indiana.edu (Mailer
R2.08
> with BSMTP id 4801; Fri, 20 Mar 92 10:12:09 EST
> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 92 09:59 EST
> To: [log in to unmask]
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Undelivered mail
>
> Your mail was not delivered to some or all of its
> intended recipients for the following reason(s):
>
> 6001 no valid recipients for this node
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Received: (from DUKEVM.BITNET for <[log in to unmask]> via BSMTP)
> Received: (from MAILER@DUKEVM for MAILER@DUKEMVS via NJE)
> (UCLA/Mail V1.500 M-RSCS8785-8785-30); Fri, 20 Mar 92 09:59:19 EST
> Received: from DUKEVM.BITNET by DUKEVM.BITNET (Mailer R2.05) with BSMTP id
> 7532; Fri, 20 Mar 92 09:58:48 EST
> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 09:21:00 EST
> Reply-To: "Music Library Association Mailing List" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sender: "Music Library Association Mailing List" <[log in to unmask]>
> From: "Mary.Black_Shier" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: User Sophistication
> To: Multiple recipients of list MLA-L <[log in to unmask]>
>
> At the risk of sounding like I came from the dark ages (perhaps I did) let me
> throw into the ring the observation that our card catalog in music works
about
> three times as fast as our online system for almost any music search. While
> it has its problems, the identification of CD, stereo, and mono records is
> quick, and so are virtually all other functions. We do have an online system
> available, but, unless one wishes to search a contents note, it is cumbersome
> and seldom faster. Further, we'll probably never be able to recon the older
> recordings. My patrons are also fast becoming aware that, by and large, the
> program notes, libretti, etc., are generally better in the records than in
the
> CDs. Our local NOTIS wasn't programmed to search 007 or 300 anyway; further,
> we may lose our connection to it through various changes in the way the
campus
> systems office plans to support the rest of the campus. So here's a squeek
of
> support for maintaining the card catalog if it hasn;t already been discarded!
> Mary Black - [log in to unmask]
>
|
