Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!texbell!texsun!convex!thurlow@convex.com
From: thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
Subject: Re: Questions about X.400
Message-ID: <3215@convex.UUCP>
Date: 18 Nov 89 21:09:00 GMT
References: <1987@xyzzy.UUCP> <10100002@WL9.Prime.COM> <8061@ditmela.oz>
Sender: news@convex.UUCP
Lines: 26

smart@ditmela.oz (Robert Smart) writes:

>In article <10100002@WL9.Prime.COM> MYNARD@WL9.Prime.COM writes:
>>
>> X.400 mail really does work.
>>
>There seems to be a really big hole in X.400 to my mind, and that is
>administration. For TCP/IP I know how to get an IP address, how to get
>a domain name, how to get the name server records set up so that I
>can be reached.

You mean you know how (on BSD Unix) to set up the /etc/hosts file?
Which you have to do by hand?  Or am I missing something?  What you
are talking about sounds like criticisms about the implementations,
not the standards.  If you meant, 'we need more usable, fully rounded 
X.400 implementations', I entirely agree with you.  That will happen
as more people gain experience with the existing implementations, and
bump their heads against limitations.  Configuration and management
are tough issues, but I don't consider them to be a bigger problem for
X.400 than a lot of existing protocols.  (For example, I *hate* setting
up the UUCP database!).

Rob T
--
Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."