Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!SUN.COM!pv
From: pv@SUN.COM (Peter Vanderbilt)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Fw: Re: RFC 987 V 2.0
Message-ID: <8907171648.AA17818@polya.sun.com>
Date: 17 Jul 89 16:48:15 GMT
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Reply-To: kehres@tis.llnl.gov
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 22
Approved: post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov

>  I guess it is mostly a problem of wording, but it is clear that what
>  you call the EBNF mapping should be absolutely avoided if the personal
>  name mapping is possible.   ...

>  I have observed that, when mapping the envelope, using any EBNF
>  encoding is in practice equivalent to bouncing the mail...

(The "EBNF encoding" is the EBNF.std-or-address of 4.2.2 -- the slash
separated form like /G=Christian/S=Huitema/@mirsa.inria.fr.)

We've had no problems with these address forms.

They are in use and are necessary for addressing arbitrary X.400
users.  I would oppose wording to say that they should be "absolutely
avoided".

Pete

P.S.  Could your sendmail.cf's be configured incorrectly?  The message
you're getting usually comes from using the local mailer rather than
using the mailer for the gateway.  Or perhaps the addresses that work
for you are real 822 addresses, not encoded-pn's.