Returned mail: User unknown

Ken Thompson kthompso at
Mon Oct 3 12:20:46 PDT 1994

Received: by ccmail from ncrwic.WichitaKS.NCR.COM
>From @ncrhub1.WichitaKS.NCR.COM:mailer-daemon at
X-Envelope-From: @ncrhub1.WichitaKS.NCR.COM:mailer-daemon at
Received: by ncrwic.WichitaKS.NCR.COM; 3 Oct 94 08:48:45 CDT
Received: from ncrgw1 by ncrhub1.NCR.COM id aw12126; 3 Oct 94 9:50 EDT
Received: by ncrgw1.NCR.COM; 3 Oct 94 09:42:49 EDT
    id AA29888; Mon, 3 Oct 94 06:42:46 -0700
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 94 06:42:46 -0700
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON at>
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Message-Id: <9410031342.AA29888 at>
To: kthompso at smtplink.wichitaks.NCR.COM

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
While talking to
>>> RCPT To:<scsi_reflector at>
<<< 550 <scsi_reflector at>... User unknown
550 <scsi_reflector at>... User unknown

   ----- Recipients of this delivery -----
Bounced, cannot deliver:
   <scsi_reflector at>

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from h192-127-251-16.NCR.COM by (5.65/10Aug94)
 id AA29705; Mon, 3 Oct 94 06:38:25 -0700
Received: from ncrwic by ncrhub1.NCR.COM id ak11283; 3 Oct 94 9:35 EDT
Received: by ncrwic.WichitaKS.NCR.COM; 3 Oct 94 08:23:47 CDT
Received: from cc:Mail by
 id AA781196776 Mon, 03 Oct 94 08:06:16 cdt
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 94 08:06:16 cdt
From: Ken Thompson <kthompso at smtplink.wichitaks.NCR.COM>
Message-Id: <9409037811.AA781196776 at>
To: "tfinchs%a1.vax2t.mrouter at",
        "Permanent address gardner", 1434 <gardner at>
Cc: scsi_reflector at, gardner at
Subject: Re[2]: SCAM and Differential

>From @ncrhub1.WichitaKS.NCR.COM:gardner at 
X-Envelope-From: @ncrhub1.WichitaKS.NCR.COM:gardner at 
Received: by ncrwic.WichitaKS.NCR.COM; 1 Oct 94 15:51:05 CDT Received: 
|from ncrgw1 by ncrhub1.NCR.COM id ab05374; 1 Oct 94 16:53 EDT Received: 
by ncrgw1.NCR.COM; 1 Oct 94 16:46:26 EDT
    id AA11289; Sat, 1 Oct 94 13:41:47 -0700
Received: from ssag.enet by (5.65/09May94)
    id AA01408; Sat, 1 Oct 94 13:41:34 -0700
Message-Id: <9410012041.AA01408 at>
Received: from ssag.enet; by decpa.enet; Sat, 1 Oct 94 13:41:34 PDT 
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 94 13:41:34 PDT
From: "Permanent address gardner", 1434 <gardner at> 
MMDF-Warning:  Parse error in original version of preceding line at 
To: "tfinchs%a1.vax2t.mrouter at" 
Cc: scsi_reflector at, gardner at 
Apparently-To: scsi at
Subject: RE: SCAM and Differential

I discussed SCAM and the properties of differential signals with Bill 
Ham over a year ago.  Based on both engineering design knowledge and 
what Bill has seen/measured in the lab, SCAM should work just fine in
differential.  When a signal is released, it may take a while (relatively 
speaking, perhaps a few microseconds) for the terminators to pull it to
a negated state, but it will occur.  And since the SCAM protocol is totally 
asynchronous it will work, albeit perhaps slightly slower than in a singel 
ended environment.  Oh yes, the receivers need a little hysterisis to
avoid oscillation on the slow negation edge, but apparently existing 
receivers already have this.

So, differential SCAM should work, whether it is practical is another matter. 
Everyone will make up their own mind as to whether SCAM is useful in a 
differential environment.  However, to the best of my knowledge every single 
SCSI protocol chip does not provide sufficient control of differential 
transceivers to implement SCAM.  In particular they are missing the ability 
to disable active negation and operate in an acctive-assert / passive-release 
/ wired-or mode.  Thus SCAM should work in differential, but there is no 
existing protocol silicon that can implement it, and I'm not aware of anyone 
developing any.

Ed Gardner

I think he is wrong here.  We have individual enables for each data line on the 
NCR53c825 (I do not have a 7xx book handy).
Ken Thompson

More information about the T10 mailing list