Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!rutgers!apple!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!com.qz.se!JPALME From: JPALME@com.qz.se Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Re: concise format Message-ID: <457964@QZCOM> Date: 24 Oct 89 15:53:00 GMT References: <8910230853.AA14326@jerry.inria.fr> Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov Reply-To: Jacob Palme QZ Distribution: inet Organization: The Internet Lines: 32 Approved: post-x400@tis.llnl.gov >X-Originator: Jacob Palme QZ The SMTP format, with the "@" character, has as an important drawback that this character is defined as "nationally defined" and thus is not the same in all countries. Your arguments are all based on the idea that the user should "understand" in X.400 terms an address. Certainly, if that is the goal, then the RARE format is better. The argument behind the concise format is that a user is not interested in concepts such as "ADMD" or "Organizational Unit", with their special meaning in X.400. A user is interested in concepts like "GB" for Great Britain, "IBM Corp.", "Christian", "Huitema" and prefers a minimum of other info, and that info using a minimum of funny characters. It is very difficult to make X.400 experts understand this idea. To us, the X.400 concepts are so natural, that we cannot easily understand that not everyone longs for the fantastic opportunity of learning to understand them!!! But let us wait and see what results the psychological tests will show. They will be performed by the psychological research laboratory of the Swedish Defense Research Agency, financed by the Swedish Telecom. They will show who is right. However, they will not include any SMTP-like format, using "@" and ".". No one has until now proposed that format, because of the problem with "@" not being an internationally recognized format.