SIP BAD messages

I keep getting these messages with CME 12.4.9.T with CUE 2.3.1, I read one link on Net Pro that said this should be resolved by now and the other said to collect the logs and send it to TAC. Any one know if these are harmless?
%SIP-3-BADPAIR: Unexpected timer 23 (SIP_TIMER_REMOVE_TRANSACTION) in state 27 (SIP_STATE_OPTIONS_WAIT) substate 0 (SUBSTATE_NONE)
Aug 3 19:54:21.465: %SIP-3-BADPAIR: Unexpected timer 23 (SIP_TIMER_REMOVE_TRANSACTION) in state 27 (SIP_STATE_OPTIONS_WAIT) substate 0 (SUBSTATE_NONE)

SIP Processes causing slow memory leak when there no active calls . Specifically sip register timer expiry messages are causing this behavior. Try to upgrade the software to 12.4(09.15)T or to an higher version

Similar Messages

Hello. after updating to Ios 8 my iPhone is terribly! Discharged very quickly, many transitions between applications, the program takes off, ringtones do not work - works a standard call, the keyboard freezes, bad messages are sent, often loses the n

Hello. after updating to Ios 8 my iPhone is terribly! Discharged very quickly, many transitions between applications, the program takes off, ringtones do not work - works a standard call, the keyboard freezes, bad messages are sent, often loses the network. what have you done with your phone moym ?! solve all these problems! I beg of you!

Hello. after updating to Ios 8 my iPhone is terribly! Discharged very quickly, many transitions between applications, the program takes off, ringtones do not work - works a standard call, the keyboard freezes, bad messages are sent, often loses the network. what have you done with your phone moym ?! solve all these problems! I beg of you!

Bad Messages only from one sender

Hello there,
i have a problem with mails from a specific sender. When the sender is sending mails without an attachment, then the mail is ok and the recipient will get it. But when the sender sends the mail with an attachment, then the mail will get as Bad Message to the Postmaster.
I think there is something wrong in the Header but i don't know what:
MAIL FROM:<[email protected]> SIZE=573007
RCPT TO:<[email protected]>
Received: from xxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx ([xx.xx.xx.xx])
by xxxxxxxxxx.xx with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:52:34 +0200
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,361,1243807200";
d="pdf'?png'150?scan'150,208,217,150";a="2721830 3"
Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de ([81.169.146.161])
by xxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2009 11:52:33 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1246960352; l=571364;
s=domk; d=rhea-and-partner.biz;
h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:X-RZG-CLASS-ID:
X-RZG-AUTH;
bh=aY6mjNsN0vqY2auMgf+alJPbvNA=;
b=hQXMz5BITbUSVrYtm41OzKNRkS9AZAouFo8ED/uzRP5bHmeNd23fg8whfT+qUxX31pi
m21D3KUC5Ovjch109Jzrty8Eq7jVExkqN6Nqs/aTq7Uia71BYxwPXN5I4Ekw0c7hgBF7r
42ZyYLu1/yh8wkrjMgUHCVR4TSZAHNLP5hM=
X-RZG-AUTH: :PH4Lf0Wrb6+6xL8EEXtEHc5gFqvY7xz0LT3kjfBINp1lhscXy ML+LucWtjC2jEzFsnMozhfBTmY=
X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00
Received: from WWWDE19A13C016 ([202.153.93.94])
by post.strato.de (fruni mo51) (RZmta 18.49)
with ESMTP id a04279l679XUiR ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:52:06 +0200 (MEST)
From: "Leo Zhang - Rhea & Partner International Consultants Ltd." <[email protected]>
To: "'xxxxx xxxxxxx'" <[email protected]>
Cc: "'Ruediger W. Kuemmerle - Rhea & Partner International Consultants Ltd.'" <[email protected]>
Subject: Uebersendung erstes Angebot - 3250780 Swimming pool - fence 1003962
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:57:19 +0800
Message-ID: <001c01c9fee9$52a5ea50$f7f1bef0$@biz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01C9FF2C.60C92A50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acn+6QJn52YxFNPXTgCsrskIq43aXw==
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir MailGuard (Version: 8.0.0.18; AVE: 8.2.0.204; VDF: 7.1.4.190)
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C9FF2C.60C92A50
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_001E_01C9FF2C.60C92A50"
------=_NextPart_001_001E_01C9FF2C.60C92A50
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_002_001F_01C9FF2C.60C92A50"
------=_NextPart_002_001F_01C9FF2C.60C92A50
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
RESEND!
...following the mail text in HTML and then the attachment.
Maybe someone can see what the problem is. I talked to the sender and they told me that they have only with us these problems.
The GW Version is 7.0.3
Any ideas?
Thanks
Matthias

I've got the same problem with GW 7.0.3. The content, which was send to the Postmaster:
"Die Anlagedatei wurde vom Gateway empfangen, doch das Gateway konnte die Nachricht nicht verarbeiten."
or my free translation
"The attachted file was received from the gateway, but the gateway could not process the message."
The E-Mail had a pdf attachment. When I send a new external email from my personal freemail account with these problematic attachment to the firm, then the mail arrives.
Could the MIME-Type ISO-8859-1 be the problem?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I didn't found a solution in an other thread.
Originally Posted by Matthias123
Hello there,
i have a problem with mails from a specific sender. When the sender is sending mails without an attachment, then the mail is ok and the recipient will get it. But when the sender sends the mail with an attachment, then the mail will get as Bad Message to the Postmaster.
I think there is something wrong in the Header but i don't know what:
MAIL FROM:<[email protected]> SIZE=573007
RCPT TO:<[email protected]>
Received: from xxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx ([xx.xx.xx.xx])
by xxxxxxxxxx.xx with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:52:34 +0200
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,361,1243807200";
d="pdf'?png'150?scan'150,208,217,150";a="2721830 3"
Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de ([81.169.146.161])
by xxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2009 11:52:33 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1246960352; l=571364;
s=domk; d=rhea-and-partner.biz;
h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:X-RZG-CLASS-ID:
X-RZG-AUTH;
bh=aY6mjNsN0vqY2auMgf+alJPbvNA=;
b=hQXMz5BITbUSVrYtm41OzKNRkS9AZAouFo8ED/uzRP5bHmeNd23fg8whfT+qUxX31pi
m21D3KUC5Ovjch109Jzrty8Eq7jVExkqN6Nqs/aTq7Uia71BYxwPXN5I4Ekw0c7hgBF7r
42ZyYLu1/yh8wkrjMgUHCVR4TSZAHNLP5hM=
X-RZG-AUTH: :PH4Lf0Wrb6+6xL8EEXtEHc5gFqvY7xz0LT3kjfBINp1lhscXy ML+LucWtjC2jEzFsnMozhfBTmY=
X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00
Received: from WWWDE19A13C016 ([202.153.93.94])
by post.strato.de (fruni mo51) (RZmta 18.49)
with ESMTP id a04279l679XUiR ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:52:06 +0200 (MEST)
From: "Leo Zhang - Rhea & Partner International Consultants Ltd." <[email protected]>
To: "'xxxxx xxxxxxx'" <[email protected]>
Cc: "'Ruediger W. Kuemmerle - Rhea & Partner International Consultants Ltd.'" <[email protected]>
Subject: Uebersendung erstes Angebot - 3250780 Swimming pool - fence 1003962
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:57:19 +0800
Message-ID: <001c01c9fee9$52a5ea50$f7f1bef0$@biz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01C9FF2C.60C92A50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acn+6QJn52YxFNPXTgCsrskIq43aXw==
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir MailGuard (Version: 8.0.0.18; AVE: 8.2.0.204; VDF: 7.1.4.190)
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C9FF2C.60C92A50
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_001E_01C9FF2C.60C92A50"
------=_NextPart_001_001E_01C9FF2C.60C92A50
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_002_001F_01C9FF2C.60C92A50"
------=_NextPart_002_001F_01C9FF2C.60C92A50
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
RESEND!
...following the mail text in HTML and then the attachment.
Maybe someone can see what the problem is. I talked to the sender and they told me that they have only with us these problems.
The GW Version is 7.0.3
Any ideas?
Thanks
Matthias

B2B-50079 Transport Error : Bad Message

Hi All,
I have an SFTP outbound TPA which is used to transfer a PGP file from our internal system to TP vendor.
So the transfer is as follows B2B(Internal System) -> WebServer(acts as proxy while connecting to third party server)-->ThirdParty.
The use proxy is checked in the Channels of the Trading Partner.
The transfer fails while transfering the file to the TP with the below error.
"B2B-50079 Transport Error : Bad Message" I have manually sftpd from web server to the TP server and it is working absolutely fine.
Also i have verified that the certificate and host,port username details to connect to the TP are correct.
Please let us know on what the problem area could be.
There is no problem with file naming convention since the file is getting picked up by the listening channel and also we have checked the preserve file name option in the TP channel.
Any help on this is much appreciated.
Thanks,
Naveen Kumar T.

Thanks Anuj for the response.
We already have the required patch, also its working fine with other Trading partners which uses SFTP. We are facing this issue with only one Trading partner and the same is working fine with 10g B2B but not with 11g.
Please let us know if there is any other configurations which we can check.
Thanks,
Sirisha

I wonder if it is possible to hack the iphone. because a friend received a bad message me and I never send the messenger .. Is someone please help me understand?

I wonder if it is possible to hack the iphone? because a friend received a bad message me and i never send the messenger. is someone please help me

It wasn't your iPhone that was hacked, but your email account (or
messaging account) that was hacked. Immediately change all your
passwords for such accounts.

Mini mac will not register my digital camera. It connected the first day and I was able to upload some video; however, I pulled the USB out--there was a bad message--and I cannot get the mac to register that I plug it back in.

It connected the first day and I was able to upload some video; however, I pulled the USB out--there was a bad message--and I cannot get the mac to register that I plug it back in.

Have you downloaded everything that is on the camera? If so format the SD card on the camera (will erase everything on the card).
If you have not downloaded everything can you see stuff on the camera? If you have a card reader you could try putting the SD card in that and trying on the mini. If your mini has a SD card slot you could try that.
In any case format the card on the camera before taking more pics.
Next time be sure to eject the camera from the Mac properly and turn the camera off before disconnecting.
EDIT: You might also check the camera's USB Mode is set to PC.

MIME/SMIME Encryption with Bad Message Signature error

Hello Gurus,
I'm trying to send out an encrypted message through a custom pipeline with MIME Encoder. The error we're getting is: The message has a bad message signature. I searched around and found no references to this error.
All the certs are in place. Encryption was set to true in the pipeline. No signing needed.
Has anyone run into this issue before? Thank you in advance.

The error we're getting is: The message has a bad message signature. I searched around and found no references to this error.
Hi,
According to current information, we can hardly give precise troubleshooting why this happens, I think you need check the configuration on your side, and collect more information for us to troubleshoot.
Regards
Angie
We are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time. Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.
Click
HERE to participate the survey.

LIBGWT_CAT:1313: ERROR: Bad message

I am trying to connect a clarifyCRM 11.5 based system from BEA WebLogic 7.0 Sp2
through WebLogic Tuxedo Connector.
I am getting a "Bad Message" error on the clarify side. PLease let me know what
might be the error.
Details are as follows:
================
1. BEA Weblogic is installed on Win2k and Clarify is installed on Solaris8.
2. On Solaris8 machine, the ULog shows the following error:
==============================================
150353.jupiter!GWTDOMAIN.8761.1.0: LIBGWT_CAT:1129: INFO: Connection established
with domain (domainid=<BEA001
)150354.jupiter!GWTDOMAIN.8761.1.0: LIBGWT_CAT:1313: ERROR: Bad message from BEA001.
Closing file descriptor
150354.jupiter!GWTDOMAIN.8761.1.0: LIBGWT_CAT:1130: INFO: Disconnected from domain
(domainid=<BEA001>)
150354.jupiter!GWTDOMAIN.8761.1.0: LIBGWT_CAT:1354: INFO: Retrying domain (domainid=<BEA001>)
every 60 seconds
==========================================================
3.The configuration for WTC in config.xml :
===========================================================
<WTCServer Name="MyWTCServer" Targets="myserver">
<WTCImport LocalAccessPoint="BEA001"
Name="WTCImport-1056499621875"
RemoteAccessPointList="CLAR115" RemoteName="CB_EXESUB" ResourceName="MyImportedService"/>
<WTCLocalTuxDom AccessPoint="BEA001" AccessPointId="BEA001"
ConnectionPolicy="ON_DEMAND" MaxRetries="5000000"
NWAddr="//172.24.3.208:7001" Name="WTCLocalTuxDom-1055806963906"/>
<WTCRemoteTuxDom AccessPoint="CLAR115" AccessPointId="CLAR115"
ConnectionPolicy="ON_DEMAND" LocalAccessPoint="BEA001"
NWAddr="//10.3.0.14:53401" Name="WTCRemoteTuxDom-1056499341890"/>
</WTCServer>
==================================================================
4. DMConfig on on clarify machine:
==================================================
# DMCONFIG FILE
*DM_RESOURCES
 VERSION="U22"
*DM_LOCAL
CLAR115 GWGRP=GWDOM
 TYPE="TDOMAIN"
 DOMAINID="CLAR115"
 AUDITLOG="/u02/program/tuxedo/clr_115/AUDITLOG"
 BLOCKTIME=10
 CONNECTION_POLICY="ON_DEMAND"
 DMTLOGDEV="/u02/program/tuxedo/clr_115/DMTLOG"
 DMTLOGNAME="DMTLOG_TDOM"
 MAXDATALEN=56
 MAXRACCESSPOINT=89
 MAXTRAN=100
 BLOB_SHM_SIZE=1000000
*DM_REMOTE
BEA001 TYPE=TDOMAIN
 DOMAINID="BEA001"
*DM_TDOMAIN
BEA001 NWADDR="//172.24.3.208:7001"
# NWDEVICE="/dev/tcp"
CLAR115 NWADDR="//jupiter:53401"
# NWDEVICE="/dev/tcp"
*DM_LOCAL_SERVICES
CB_EXESUB LDOM="CLAR115"
*DM_REMOTE_SERVICES
===============================================================

Bhaskar,
The ULOG message about "Retrying" does not go with a configuration
of "ON_DEMAND". The best guess is that BEA001 is not really communicating
with whom you think. Two things to look at:
1)Check that "jupiter"=="10.3.0.14"
2) Do a dmunloadcf on the CLAR115 domain and see if the domain that is
booted
is what you expected from your configuration.
Bob Finan
Bhaskar wrote:
Bob,
No success by changing port numbers.
However after some more experimentation I am getting the following:
I installed tuxedo on another Windows 2000 m/c. (say TUX001). If I call the Clarify
domain as CLAR115 and BEA domain as BEA001 then
a) I am able to communicate between CLAR115 and TUX001
b) I am able to communicate between TUX001 and BEA001 by using WTC in BEA001
c) But, I am still not able to communicate between BEA001 and CLAR115. I still
obtain a BAD Message error on the CLAR115 side
Quite puzzled with this.
Regards
Bhaskar
"Bhaskar" <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Bob,
I would surely try with using another port.
Currently,I am using a different port for the WLS admin server. Secondly,
in case
I was using a port that was already being used by some other server,
one of the
two servers would not have come up.
Is there any method to read the ULogs for the Local tuxedo domain on
WLS end.
thanks and regards
Bhaskar
Bob Finan <[email protected]> wrote:
Bhaskar,
You are probably using the //172.24.3.208:7001 port for other purposes
and this is
causing the problem(e.g. 7001 is the default WLS admin port).Try
changing the
NWAddr port number for the WTCLocalTuxDom..
Bob Finan
Bhaskar wrote:
I am trying to connect a clarifyCRM 11.5 based system from BEA WebLogic
7.0 Sp2
through WebLogic Tuxedo Connector.
I am getting a "Bad Message" error on the clarify side. PLease let
me
know what
might be the error.
Details are as follows:
================
1. BEA Weblogic is installed on Win2k and Clarify is installed on Solaris8.
2. On Solaris8 machine, the ULog shows the following error:
==============================================
150353.jupiter!GWTDOMAIN.8761.1.0: LIBGWT_CAT:1129: INFO: Connection
established
with domain (domainid=<BEA001
150354.jupiter!GWTDOMAIN.8761.1.0: LIBGWT_CAT:1313: ERROR: Bad message
from BEA001.
Closing file descriptor
150354.jupiter!GWTDOMAIN.8761.1.0: LIBGWT_CAT:1130: INFO: Disconnected
from domain
(domainid=<BEA001>)
150354.jupiter!GWTDOMAIN.8761.1.0: LIBGWT_CAT:1354: INFO: Retrying
domain
(domainid=<BEA001>)
every 60 seconds
==========================================================
3.The configuration for WTC in config.xml :
===========================================================
<WTCServer Name="MyWTCServer" Targets="myserver">
<WTCImport LocalAccessPoint="BEA001"
Name="WTCImport-1056499621875"
RemoteAccessPointList="CLAR115" RemoteName="CB_EXESUB"
ResourceName="MyImportedService"/>
<WTCLocalTuxDom AccessPoint="BEA001" AccessPointId="BEA001"
ConnectionPolicy="ON_DEMAND" MaxRetries="5000000"
NWAddr="//172.24.3.208:7001" Name="WTCLocalTuxDom-1055806963906"/>
<WTCRemoteTuxDom AccessPoint="CLAR115" AccessPointId="CLAR115"
ConnectionPolicy="ON_DEMAND" LocalAccessPoint="BEA001"
NWAddr="//10.3.0.14:53401" Name="WTCRemoteTuxDom-1056499341890"/>
</WTCServer>
==================================================================
4. DMConfig on on clarify machine:
==================================================
# DMCONFIG FILE
*DM_RESOURCES
 VERSION="U22"
*DM_LOCAL
CLAR115 GWGRP=GWDOM
 TYPE="TDOMAIN"
 DOMAINID="CLAR115"
 AUDITLOG="/u02/program/tuxedo/clr_115/AUDITLOG"
 BLOCKTIME=10
 CONNECTION_POLICY="ON_DEMAND"
 DMTLOGDEV="/u02/program/tuxedo/clr_115/DMTLOG"
 DMTLOGNAME="DMTLOG_TDOM"
 MAXDATALEN=56
 MAXRACCESSPOINT=89
 MAXTRAN=100
 BLOB_SHM_SIZE=1000000
*DM_REMOTE
BEA001 TYPE=TDOMAIN
 DOMAINID="BEA001"
*DM_TDOMAIN
BEA001 NWADDR="//172.24.3.208:7001"
# NWDEVICE="/dev/tcp"
CLAR115 NWADDR="//jupiter:53401"
# NWDEVICE="/dev/tcp"
*DM_LOCAL_SERVICES
CB_EXESUB LDOM="CLAR115"
*DM_REMOTE_SERVICES
===============================================================
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Bhaskar, 
You are probably using the //172.24.3.208:7001 port for other purposes
and
this is 
causing the problem(e.g. 7001 is the default WLS admin port).Try changing
the 
NWAddr port number for the WTCLocalTuxDom.. 
Bob Finan 
 
Bhaskar wrote: 
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">I am trying to connect a clarifyCRM 11.5 based system
from BEA WebLogic 7.0 Sp2
through WebLogic Tuxedo Connector.
I am getting a "Bad Message" error on the clarify side. PLease let me
know what
might be the error.
Details are as follows:
================
1. BEA Weblogic is installed on Win2k and Clarify is installed on Solaris8.
2. On Solaris8 machine, the ULog shows the following error:
==============================================
150353.jupiter!GWTDOMAIN.8761.1.0: LIBGWT_CAT:1129: INFO: Connection
established
with domain (domainid=<BEA001
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">150354.jupiter!GWTDOMAIN.8761.1.0: LIBGWT_CAT:1313:
ERROR: Bad message from BEA001.
Closing file descriptor
150354.jupiter!GWTDOMAIN.8761.1.0: LIBGWT_CAT:1130: INFO: Disconnected
from domain
(domainid=<BEA001>)
150354.jupiter!GWTDOMAIN.8761.1.0: LIBGWT_CAT:1354: INFO: Retrying domain
(domainid=<BEA001>)
every 60 seconds
==========================================================
3.The configuration for WTC in config.xml :
===========================================================
<WTCServer Name="MyWTCServer" Targets="myserver">
<WTCImport LocalAccessPoint="BEA001"
Name="WTCImport-1056499621875"
RemoteAccessPointList="CLAR115" RemoteName="CB_EXESUB" ResourceName="MyImportedService"/>
<WTCLocalTuxDom AccessPoint="BEA001" AccessPointId="BEA001"
ConnectionPolicy="ON_DEMAND" MaxRetries="5000000"
NWAddr="//172.24.3.208:7001" Name="WTCLocalTuxDom-1055806963906"/>
<WTCRemoteTuxDom AccessPoint="CLAR115" AccessPointId="CLAR115"
ConnectionPolicy="ON_DEMAND" LocalAccessPoint="BEA001"
NWAddr="//10.3.0.14:53401" Name="WTCRemoteTuxDom-1056499341890"/>
</WTCServer>
==================================================================
4. DMConfig on on clarify machine:
==================================================
# DMCONFIG FILE
*DM_RESOURCES
 VERSION="U22"
*DM_LOCAL
CLAR115 GWGRP=GWDOM
 TYPE="TDOMAIN"
 DOMAINID="CLAR115"
 AUDITLOG="/u02/program/tuxedo/clr_115/AUDITLOG"
 BLOCKTIME=10
 CONNECTION_POLICY="ON_DEMAND"
 DMTLOGDEV="/u02/program/tuxedo/clr_115/DMTLOG"
 DMTLOGNAME="DMTLOG_TDOM"
 MAXDATALEN=56
 MAXRACCESSPOINT=89
 MAXTRAN=100
 BLOB_SHM_SIZE=1000000
*DM_REMOTE
BEA001 TYPE=TDOMAIN
 DOMAINID="BEA001"
*DM_TDOMAIN
BEA001 NWADDR="//172.24.3.208:7001"
# NWDEVICE="/dev/tcp"
CLAR115 NWADDR="//jupiter:53401"
# NWDEVICE="/dev/tcp"
*DM_LOCAL_SERVICES
CB_EXESUB LDOM="CLAR115"
*DM_REMOTE_SERVICES
===============================================================
</pre>
</blockquote>
 
</body>
</html>
[att1.html]

HELP, Keep getting CMOS Checksum Bad message...

I had made a change in bios that i guess i should'nt have, i disabled internal VGA graphics or some crap, next thing i know the computer stopped sending a signal to the monitor, so then i used the reset system config method by changing some jumpers oh by the way i have a K9N2G NEO motherboard, anyway long story short i keep getting a CMOS checksum bad message, i can load windows by pressing f2 where it says load defaults, but then when i try to open anything besides windows explorer, and internet explorer, i see the hourglass for a second and then nothing else happens i dont know what to do at allll

Hello!
Please list your components. Include the PSU.
CMOS... message is quite normal if you cleared properly. However, I would like you to do it yet again. This time pull the power cable before entering the system. Use the manual for guidance, to find the correct jumper. - Yes, I know it feels like cheating to use the manual, but it can save time.
The hourglass is a different story. We might cut that story short with the clearing of CMOS.
After clearing CMOS you have to enter date, time, what you boot from, and possibly the speed out from the processor. Until we know what processor and memory you got we can't say very much there.

GWIA 8.0.2 HP2 BAD MESSAGEs

Hi all.
I receive BAD MESSAGE mails from my GWIA several times a week. Many are from users using Spanish accents in the subject of mails sent with Outlook 2010, some of them come from monitoring appliances, some from outside my company. It happened when we had Groupwise 7.0.3 and I had the hope it would be resolved in the latest Groupwise release. Now we have version 8.0.2 HP2 on OES2 SLES10 SP3 x64 machines, but GWIA continues refusing them.
As a continuation of the work I did in another post, I will report here the cases I find and I can resolve manually. If anyone reading this has any answer or suggestion to solve this (I don't want to continue processing manually every BAD MESSAGE we receive), I would be very thankful.
So, let's go with the first one. It comes from a monitoring camera and a "Invalid minimum string length (AA02)" is reported in the GWIA log. Headers are:
<IaHead>
<IaMsgTag>000b7bdc</IaMsgTag>
<IaMsgSender>
</IaMsgSender>
<IaReceivedTime>4e4b5048</IaReceivedTime>
</IaHead>
MAIL FROM:<botzware[at]netbotz[dot]com>
RCPT TO:<lbernaldez[at]tauli[dot]es>
RCPT TO:<admin[at]tauli[dot]es>
RCPT TO:<nagios[dot]tauli[at][externalprovider][dot]com>
Received: from TNCPDMON (tncpdmon[dot]tauli[dot]es [10.10.x.x])
by oescorreu11[dot]tauli[dot]es with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 07:23:20 +0200
Subject: Value Error - Information - Camera Motion - Camara de Techo
From: Camara de Techo <botzware[at]netbotz[dot]com>
To: lbernaldez[at]tauli[dot]es, admin[at]tauli[dot]es, nagios[dot]tauli[at][externalprovider][dot]com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="NetBotzBoundary12345"
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 07:23:12 +0200
Message-Id: <1313558602.12256@TNCPDMON>
I've tested removing the externalprovider address both from RCPT TO: (the whole line) and from the To: line and GWIA accepted it. In another message, I removed the local destinations leaving only the externalprovider one and it also worked. I don't have any more messages to test with, right now, but I will do more testing just to see what happens.
Thanks in advance.
Diego

On 8/25/2011 8:56 AM, dtascon wrote:
>
> Another example (quite extrange): a mail with the following Subject:
>
> Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Especial_Agosto:_Empleo_y_Formaci=F3n?=
>
> I just removed the question signs:
>
> Subject: =UTF-8QEspecial_Agosto:_Empleo_y_Formaci=F3n=
>
> And now GWIA processes it. Aren't question signs RFC compliant?
>
>
They are. In fact ANY ACCENTS in the headers are ILLEGAL (and the thread
I gave you is a kludge around it) without RFC 2047 encoding.
However, your example is NOT encoded properly and SHOULD be rejected.
Preferably by launching a denial of service attack on the sender, but
alternatively by bitbucketing it :)
The format of an RFC 2047 atom is simple
=?<charset>?<encoding type>?<encoded text>?=
which in broad strokes matches your input here. The Q means use quoted
printable, eg hex value encoding for "high bytes". (The other legal
value is B for base64 encoding).
However your example CLAIMS UTF-8 character set. Fine, a perfectly legal
character set, and in fact the one everyone should pretty much use in
modern days. BUT....
This Cannot be a legal UTF-8 encoded atom- all non US-ASCII characters
are at least two bytes long in UTF-8.(all US-ASCII < 127 is simply byte
for byte, beyond that you use a scheme that involves multiple bytes >
$80. Since this has only one byte > $80, it's illegal).
(In general with UTF-8 you can always recognize bad encoding if you see
only one single high byte. There should be two to four in a sequence
whenever it occurs)
This looks like it might be an ISO-8859-1 encoded subject (since
those are single byte code pages) but the generating mailer is claiming
UTF-8. GWIA is thus 100% correct in rejecting this mail, as best
security practices discard malformed UTF-8 items.
The sender must fix his encoding or his encoding declaration.

MIME header missing "filename=" results in BAD messages

I've been trying to track down several issues involving what appear to
be MIME handling issues. We are running GroupWise v7.01 (we have not
installed the "interim release" yet), and all components on the server
are at that release level (MTA, POA, GWIA, WebAccess).
One of the issues I am currently working on involves problems receiving
attachments from an outside sender. Their attachments are readable if
sent to an outside test account (i.e. - we've tested it with Yahoo
web-based mail, and a RoadRunner POP3 account using Outlook as the client).
The problem is that these e-mails either get dumped by the GWIA to the
GWPROB directory, or the e-mails go through, but the attachments are
corrupted (they do show up as attachments to the e-mail, but are
unreadable).
I haven't looked at why some e-mails go through and some don't, but I
did find out why the attachments are unreadable on the delivered
e-mails, and why the rest are just undeliverable. For whatever reason,
the sender's mail server (or AV gateway or whatever else had a chance to
touch the e-mail) is either not inserting, or is stripping out the
"filename=" from the MIME header just before the encoded attachment.
Adding this back into the message (by editing the original e-mail
w/header, and dropping the modified message into the GWIA "RECEIVE"
directory) fixes the attachment AND makes the e-mail deliverable.
Below I have an example of a bad e-mail which was originally sent to our
GWPROB directory, but was successfully delivered with a readable
attachment through a separate POP3 account (RoadRunner). Following this
"bad" e-mail example is the "fixed" version of that same e-mail, which
was delivered successfully to our user, with the attachment also being
readable.
*************** This is the original "BAD" e-mail ***************
MAIL From:<[email protected]> SIZE=73686
RCPT To:<[email protected]>
Received: from test.rr.com ([65.xx.xx.xx])
by smtp.ourhost.com with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:28:27 -0500
Received: from local.com (rrcs-24-xx-xx-xx.central.biz.rr.com [24.xx.xx.xx])
by test.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l1LKSFTm009106
for <[email protected]>; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:28:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:25:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Telexis Gateway
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="Mark=Num1_Lev1_2007221202554265_Tlx"
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
--Mark=Num1_Lev1_2007221202554265_Tlx
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
This is a test
-Test Sender
--Mark=Num1_Lev1_2007221202554265_Tlx
Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-excel;
name="1st Q 2007 Income to Budget.xls"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
"1st Q 2007 Income to Budget.xls"
0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAZgAAAAAAAAAA
EAAA/v///wAAAAD+////AAAAAGUAAAD/////////////////////////////////////////////
--Mark=Num1_Lev1_2007221202554265_Tlx--
************** END OF BAD E-MAIL **************
*************** This is the "fixed" e-mail ***************
MAIL From:<[email protected]> SIZE=73686
RCPT To:<[email protected]>
Received: from test.rr.com ([65.xx.xx.xx])
by smtp.ourhost.com with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:28:27 -0500
Received: from local.com (rrcs-24-xx-xx-xx.central.biz.rr.com [24.xx.xx.xx])
by test.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l1LKSFTm009106
for <[email protected]>; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:28:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:25:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Telexis Gateway
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="Mark=Num1_Lev1_2007221202554265_Tlx"
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
--Mark=Num1_Lev1_2007221202554265_Tlx
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
This is a test
-Test Sender
--Mark=Num1_Lev1_2007221202554265_Tlx
Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-excel;
name="1st Q 2007 Income to Budget.xls"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="1st Q 2007 Income to Budget.xls"
0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAZgAAAAAAAAAA
EAAA/v///wAAAAD+////AAAAAGUAAAD/////////////////////////////////////////////
--Mark=Num1_Lev1_2007221202554265_Tlx--
************** END OF "FIXED" E-MAIL **************
The only change I made, which both allowed the above e-mail to be
delivered and made the attachment readable, was the addition of the
"filename=" just before the file name on the line after the
"Content-Disposition: attachment;".
I did the same test with an e-mail that had the same "filename="
missing, but somehow was successfully delivered to our user (again, the
attachment was unreadable). Adding the "filename=" into the resent
message did make the attachment readable.
I haven't looked to see if the sender's system is actually non-compliant
for excluding the "filename=" (I will be doing that later this evening),
or whether this is a GWIA problem for not being able to handle this. I
just wanted to throw this out there to see if anyone else has seen this.
Does the "interim release" update by chance fix this?
Thanks,
Greg Niese

Does this email come in directly to GWIA (or do you have a relay host in
between)? I must say I've never experienced this problem on any of the GW
systems I administer. Could you tell us what domain this is coming from?
Ted Kumsher
>>> On 2/23/2007 at 8:21 AM, in message
<[email protected]>, Greg
Niese<[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree that this shouldn't be accepted as a valid "filename parameter"
> line. There are two ways to "not accept" this invalid parameter: "stop
> processing" the e-mail because of the problem (discard the e-mail), or
> discard the bad parameter and continue processing the rest of the e-mail
> (this could only work when the parameter is optional, as in this case).
> The GWIA seems to take the route of "stop processing", and then moving
>
> the resultant "bad" e-mail to the GWPROB directory.
>
> I say "seems" because in many cases where this occurs the e-mail doesn't
> get sent to the GWPROB directory, but instead still gets through the
> GWIA to the user. The attachments are corrupted, but still show up
> correctly in the attachment window, so everything seems OK with the
> e-mail & attachment - until you try to open the attachment.
>
> If there is a semi-colon after the "Content-disposition" type, the GWIA
> should see a valid disposition parameter following. But if it sees an
> invalid parameter, as in this case, what is the GWIA doing? It must
> either be discarding the invalid parameter, or "uses" it by either
> incorrectly parsing it as part of the header, or lumping it in as part
> of the attachment. If it "uses" in any way the invalid line of data -
> that sounds like the definition of "accepting" it, isn't it?
>
> To test whether the GWIA is actually using, and therefore "accepting",
> this bad parameter, I simply removed the malformed parameter (having the
>
> line in or out shouldn't matter if the GWIA's not using it), and I tried
>
> this both with the semi-colon removed from the end of the
> "content-disposition" type, and with that semi-colon left in place. In
> both cases the GWIA properly processed the e-mail and the attachment was
> readable! What does that mean? If the GWIA was truely NOT
> using/accepting that invalid header parameter (i.e. - the GWIA discards
> it), then the e-mail and attachment should go through OK. Since this
> isn't what happens when the bad line is left in place (the attachments
> DO NOT come through OK, but the e-mail often does get to the user's
> mailbox), then the GWIA must be accepting that bad parameter as either a
>
> part of the header, or a part of the attachment.
>
> I suspect that in those cases that these e-mails are sent to the problem
> directory, instead of being delivered with a corrupt attachment, the
> GWIA isn't really recognizing that the optional disposition parameter is
>
> "bad". The reason for the e-mail going to the problem directory is
> probably due to an error while trying to decode the attachment if the
> bad parameter is treated as part of the attachment, or if part of the
> attachment is being lumped in with the malformed parameter as it is
> parsed.
>
> I agree that how the GWIA should go about "not accepting" bad header
> parameters may be debatable (assuming that the GWIA were actually
> halting processing of the e-mail when this type of problem is found, and
> then sending the e-mail to the problem directory every time). But in
> cases such as this, since the parameter itself is optional, it would
> seem that the better route would be for the GWIA to discard the
> parameter and continue processing, instead of "discarding" the whole
> e-mail (to the problem directory). "Discarding the bad parameter" seems
> to be what is being done by at least a few other competing SMTP agents,
> since the other mail systems I tested with did get the e-mail through
> without corrupting the attachment.
>
> I may suggest that the sender's company fix whatever is going on at
> their server, but it probably won't do any good (I've already been told
> that they don't experience this problem with anyone else). In the
> meantime, my user (yes...he is the CEO), will have to continue to have
> some important e-mails sent to one of his personal accounts, because
> those e-mail systems receive these e-mails fine, but our GroupWise
> system can't.
>
> :-(
>
> -Greg
>
>
>
> Michael Bell wrote:
>> No it shouldn't, IMO.
>>
>> It's a matter of interpretation, of course. But GWIA is 100% right in
> not
>> accepting this as vaid (that part is beyond any debate - it's in the
> RFC).
>>
>> The only part that can be debated is "should GWIA then pass the buck"?.
> In
>> olden days, many would have said yes.
>>
>> But In general, no. Moving away from Postel's law, which was formulated
> in a
>> pre-malware age, is pretty much needed. Tight specifications and
> pickiness
>> is good. Collateral damage is unfortunate, and of course one needs to be
>
>> flexible if this is a widespread issue (which frankly, it is not in this
>
>> case), but otherwise it is up to to sender to fix their issue.
>>
>> 90% of viruses and malware in the last 6 years (and I'm well aware of
> them,
>> working in the email security field) are from MALFORMED e-mail, that the
>> gateway and client misinterpreted. Many of these were MS issues, but
> that's
>> another point. Point is you have to be STRICT.
>>
>> In this case this violates the generic MIME RFCs which state that if you
> do
>> have parameters, they all gotta be separated with semicolons (PASS), and
>
>> have to be name=value pairs (FAIL).
>>
>>
>> "Greg Niese" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Well, according to RFC 2183, the "filename=" string has to be present if
>
>>> the Filename parameter is going to be used. So the sending host seems
> to
>>> be "broken" in that regard.
>>>
>>> My next question then is: Should the GWIA ignore the "stray" file name
> in
>>> these e-mail headers, instead of allowing it to be lumped in with the
>>> attachment (I'm assuming that's why the attachment is trashed)? It
>>> appears that other systems are able to do this.
>>>
>>> -Greg
>>>
>>> Greg Niese wrote:
>>>> I haven't looked to see if the sender's system is actually
non-compliant
>>>> for excluding the "filename=" (I will be doing that later this
evening),
>
>>>> or whether this is a GWIA problem for not being able to handle this. I
>>>> just wanted to throw this out there to see if anyone else has seen
this.
>>>>
>>>> Does the "interim release" update by chance fix this?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Greg Niese
>>>>
>>
>>

ECATT: Bad Message Handling in VL02N (Line Deletion)

Hello All,
I'm having a big headache with the following automation scenario on VL02N transaction:
- open a DN number
- use position button to trigger screen where u can select a line
- enter a line (script parameter)
- validate the line
- use the delete button to delete selected line
- confirm the deletion message
- save and exit
I recorded the whole good case in one step of SAPGUI.
Problem is:
A)without catching any message, if line does not exist (ex line is 20 and 20 is already deleted),
the script raise no error BUT erases the first line in the screen (ie the lowest remaining one)
B) the proper error msg ("Line does not exists") is only triggered when i enter the next interface of the screen but this interface do the deletion of the lowest line!!
so either:
- i don't put the deletion interface in the MSG block and the message is not raised
- i put the deleting interface in the MSG block , the message is raised but too late.
Do i handle the message badly?
Is there a way to split the deletion interface to have separately the error detection and the deletion?
See code below
VL02N_111_STEP_1 = choice of line to position on
VL02N_1000_STEP_2 = deletion of selected line
MESSAGE ( VERIF_LINE_EXISTS ).
 SAPGUI ( VL02N_111_STEP_1 ). <= this is the dialog where i select the line and get the error msg in record time
ENDMESSAGE ( E_VERIF_LINE_EXISTS ).
DO &TFILL.
 IF ( VERIF_LINE_EXISTS[&LPC]-MSGID = 'VL' ).
 IF ( VERIF_LINE_EXISTS[&LPC]-MSGNR = 341 ).
 LOG ( VERIF_LINE_EXISTS[&LPC]-MSGV1 ).
 LOG ( VERIF_LINE_EXISTS[&LPC]-MSGV2 ).
 SAPGUI ( VL02N_10_1). <= exiting without deleting anything
 SAPGUI ( VL02N_1000_1 ).
 SAPGUI ( VL02N_4004_1 ).
 ENDIF.
 ELSE.
 LOG ( "LINE EXISTS" ).
 SAPGUI ( VL02N_1000_STEP_2 ). <= deleting the line
 ENDIF.
ENDDO.
===below is saving and existing the transaction

Hi Woody,
Position button would retrive/result in the desired result only when the value is present, else it would select those elements/lines which are possibly the next or the previous.
Like, suppose you are searching for 21 out of 20, 22, 23.. The search result would select 20 in some cases or 21 in some other cases. Its basically done on the alphabetical/numeric order in decending manner...
That might be one reason that you are not able to get a message saying wrong selection. To overcome such situation, I would have taken a list of database entries for the respective DN number and would have compared with the result.
One thumb rule which I follow is, when ever I am going to use position button, I would also use a gettab to retrive values from the table, which has helped me almost 95% of the times.
If that is a structure and/or there are multiple tables that are associated with the grid values, its always suggested to use SQL queries in INLINE ABAP.
Also, you could substitute a single IF instead of nested IF in your statements..
 IF ( VERIF_LINE_EXISTS[&LPC]-MSGID = 'VL' AND VERIF_LINE_EXISTS[&LPC]-MSGNR = 341 ).
 LOG ( VERIF_LINE_EXISTS[&LPC]-MSGV1 ).
 LOG ( VERIF_LINE_EXISTS[&LPC]-MSGV2 ).
 SAPGUI ( VL02N_10_1). <= exiting without deleting anything
 SAPGUI ( VL02N_1000_1 ).
 SAPGUI ( VL02N_4004_1 ).
 ELSE.
 LOG ( "LINE EXISTS" ).
 SAPGUI ( VL02N_1000_STEP_2 ). <= deleting the line
 ENDIF.
Also, see if the deletion is taken place basing on the row & col id of the line. If it is always deleting the line item 0,0 then you should make sure that you have to take the id of that line which is to be deleted.
Hope this info helps.
Best regards,
Harsha
PS: Reward points accordingly for all responding.

Handling BADI messages

Hi,
How we handle messages returned by a BADI into WD java. How a messages of BADI can be passed to appropriate RFC to display it on the portal.
I want to apply some check in BADI for enrollment and i want the message to be displayed on portal (standard ESS enrollment process).
Thanks
Vishal kapoor

closed

Sip register message manipulation

Hi,
I'm trying to register some third party Sip end point hat is not correct following the Sip rfc for cisco...
what is does when it sends out a registrer message is:
REGISTER sip:[email protected]:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.1.240.250:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bKPj6gOszqWqbihj5RmZvnby1oXCheB8g4dZ
Max-Forwards: 70
From: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=EiLei.Z68vowjJw5mVnTFuz9.XtwzOJV
To: <sip:[email protected]>
Call-ID: zHGg38bBT3Nb2DPPC27Xai4ZwaNbhI0m
CSeq: 55919 REGISTER
Contact: <sip:[email protected]:5060;ob>
Expires: 300
Allow: PRACK, INVITE, ACK, BYE, CANCEL, UPDATE, SUBSCRIBE, NOTIFY, REFER, MESSAGE, OPTIONS
Content-Length: 0
In red is not allowed to send SIP:100@
i get the error message:
Sent:
SIP/2.0 400 Request-URI MUST NOT have user
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.1.240.250:5060;rport;branch=z9hG4bKPj6gOszqWqbihj5RmZvnby1oXCheB8g4dZ
From: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=EiLei.Z68vowjJw5mVnTFuz9.XtwzOJV
To: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=1DC10A80-1236
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 09:20:59 GMT
Call-ID: zHGg38bBT3Nb2DPPC27Xai4ZwaNbhI0m
Server: Cisco-SIPGateway/IOS-12.x
CSeq: 55919 REGISTER
Content-Length: 0
Now i know you can manipulate the sip messages when you are trying to make a call with sip profiles....
is it also possible to change the register message??
It doesn't matter were to register... i have a voice gateway were we can register and then make some calls to the callmanager just with a dialpeer
or i can try to register directly to the callmanager... also fine...
Thanksss
regards,
ken

Thanks for you're answer..
indeed that is what i thought too.. but you never know...
the third party sip end point is a medical system that is trying to register and sending the register message... i cannot change anything there... the medical company has to change the sip message in the firmware.. (or somewhere in the advanced option i cannot reach).
They not working with the default sip rfc...
but was trying to change the message... if i can change it would it be the easiest and fastest way to let it work...

SIP Invite Message

Hello,
How can be configured the CCA that in SIP Invite Request in FROM section of Message Header instead of "sip:system@.... " sip:00061007@...", where 00061007 is the line number?
Thanks for help!
Jon

Sorry, I found solution.

SIP BAD messages

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for