|  |     Using MAILbus 400, do we support the "per recipient private ext",  the "per
    message envelope private ext" or do we support both? Microsoft told our
    customer that it did a fix for the P1 private extensions for the "per
    recipient private ext". We have a customer that is having a problem with
    non-del's due to a problem with the private ext. They have ALL-IN-1 3.1,
    MB400 2.0.68, XMR 1.2.2 and the Exhange Server has MS-EXCHANGE 4.0 SV-Pak3.
    
    In this article, it just states that Exchange has a fix for the P1
    private extensions. The changes the customer has made to his system
    were installing XMR 1.2.2 and adding Service Pak 3 to his system.
     
    
 | 
|  | >    Using MAILbus 400, do we support the "per recipient private ext",  the "per
>    message envelope private ext" or do we support both? Microsoft told our
>    customer that it did a fix for the P1 private extensions for the "per
>    recipient private ext". We have a customer that is having a problem with
>    non-del's due to a problem with the private ext. They have ALL-IN-1 3.1,
>    MB400 2.0.68, XMR 1.2.2 and the Exhange Server has MS-EXCHANGE 4.0 SV-Pak3.
    
Microsoft are wrong - or if they're right, they're talking about something 
else! XMR (and ALL-IN-1 V3.2) generates a per-message private extension. This
is the one which was causing Exchange problems, and this is fixed in an
Exchange SP. Details can be found in the chefs::ms-exchange conf, I suspect. 
In your case, if you only have ALL-IN-1 V3.1, it must be XMR which is 
generating the extension. The latest ECO to XMR, which you seem to have, 
allows you to define a logical name to turn off the generation of this 
extension. 
There are per-recipient extensions present as well: common name, and Teletex 
o/r address terms for instance. These have not led to interworking problems 
with Exchange as far as I know.
    In this article, it just states that Exchange has a fix for the P1
    private extensions. The changes the customer has made to his system
    were installing XMR 1.2.2 and adding Service Pak 3 to his system.
     
Are you sure you have the XMR ECO? An anal/image on
sys$common:xmr$mrtox400.exe shows a version of "XMR V1.2-002". (13-may-1996)
If you have got this, have you defined the logical name correctly?:
$ define/nolog XMR$NO_P1EXTENSIONS 1
grahame
 |