Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!ethz.UUCP!lubich
From: lubich@ethz.UUCP (Hannes Lubich)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Re: an apology to Steve, and more discussion ...
Message-ID: <1628@ethz.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jul 89 06:58:26 GMT
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Reply-To: mcvax!inf.ethz.ch!lubich@uunet.uu.net(Hannes Lubich)
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 37
Approved: post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov


[Piet writes:]

>That's indeed the ivory tower point of view that is so
>characteristic of a lot of X.400 (and OSI, for that matter)
>people.

Bullshit. X.400 connectivity in most organizations is based on
DECNET and TCP/IP while, due to costs and unavailability of
an Internet in Europe, wide area connectivity between X.400 domains
is based on X.25 and/or leased lines. Since nobody wants to support 
different X.400 products just to cover both LAN and WAN connectivity,
we *DO* care about TCP/IP. We don't see TCP/IP as the one and only 
solution, however.

>That's why a lot of their socalled "internal email"
>will in fact be external email for a long time to come!

Nobody used this term (except from you, perhaps). X.400 systems
have been connected to the Internet from quite some time now
(I've been running a gateway from the Swisswide academic X.400
network to CSNET since 1986, for instance). RARE MHS connects you
to about 50 different networks, *including* all Internet domains,
so what's the point here?

Piet, why do you continue to willingly post misinformation, despite the
fact that you should know better and that this won't help anybody?

Could we go back to the technical points of this discussion, please.

Regards
	--HaL
-- 
~ UUCP/Usenet 	       : {known world}!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!lubich
~ or                   : lubich@ethz.uucp
~ CSNET/ARPA/BITNET    : lubich@inf.ethz.ch / lubich%inf.ethz.ch@relay.cs.net
~ The usual disclaimer : No, it wasn't me, somebody must have used my account.