Principal field invalidates RFC 5322 compliance

Due to lack of time, another post in ‘shorthand’:

Outgoing SMTP messages are rejected by ISP or Gateway appliance with error “Invalid sender address”

RFC 5322 requires a from field in the header of every email. Emails that were sent from LotusScript specifying an invalid entry for the Principal field caused Domino to create invalid message headers. The mandatory From field was missing.

When using Principal fields, ensure to use valid names. This are full names or abbreviated names as listed in the Domino Directory but not email addresses. Using email addresses in the principal field causes above issue even if the address is listed as an additional entry in the User Name field.

Sametime 8.5.x LDAP: Domino vs. Active Directory

While I was working on the upgrade of our existing Sametime environment to Sametime 8.5.1 (soon 8.5.2) I have run across an interesting question that I considered worth sharing: Will I use Domino LDAP or connect to Active Directory.

There are good and not so good reasons for either option: Continue reading

Lotus Traveler 8.5.2: Anyone else having issues with Update Installer?

After my previous post I am now back with a more appealing issue. Not a show stopper but still annoying, considering the possibilities if the automated client update is truly going to work.

The issue I am facing is an error message on our Nokia mobile phones on checking for new updates using the update installer:

“The response indicates that the server does not support Lotus Installer”

Strangely enough I have been able to upgrade one phone using this method without any issues, all subsequent attempts from there onwards failed and I am a bit stuck due to the lack of detail of information on this feature on the web. Did anyone else run into this issue today or during the beta phase? I have also opened a PMR with IBM. I will update this post as I am receiving updates.

Update 26/08/10:
Just figured out the main cause of the issue. The domlog.nsf records the URL request of the Update Installer application from the mobile phone, which looks similar to that:

You can open this url in the browser of your PC and will receive a response similar to this:

Version= 201007201801

As always, the devil lies is in the detail. Before getting to the response I had to enter my username and password in the browser, which made me think that this could be the actual issue.
Again, checking the domlog.nsf, I realised that the request from the Update Installer is an unauthenticated one, hence making it impossible for the application to receive the response.

The possible workaround is also explaining why I had been able to run the update once. The phone still had an open connection to the server in the browser session, which made the Lotus Installer request an authenticated one as well. Guess that’s the workaround for now until IBM comes back with a permanent fix on this as I don’t fancy allowing anonymous access to the Traveler servlet itself.

Truncated documents in server replica

This morning I was stumbling upon a very interesting issue in Lotus Notes/Domino that involved truncated documents on a server replica. This is an issue as the database on the server is the only one, besides a number of local replicas on laptops.

A bit of research on the web unveiled that Almar Diel has encountered a similar problem, which pointed me towards the right solution.

In order to get the full documents back onto the server replica I had to find the laptop that was holding the replica with the corrupt replication formula as this had to be cleared out as described in workaround option 2 of this IBM technote.

This will ensure that all documents replicated from now on would not be appearing as truncated documents anymore on the server. In order to fix the existing truncated documents though, I had to remove the documents from the server replica without leaving deletion stubs. This can easily be achieved in utilising Julian Robichaux’ stub-less delete function documented here. Clearing out the replication history of the local database and issuing a new replication did make the documents re-appearing on the server replica in there entirety.

Thanks to Almar and Julian for documenting your solutions!