Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: andrewf%syacus.acus.OZ.AU@uunet.uu.NET
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9007160816.27953@munnari.oz.au>
Date: 17 Jul 90 02:41:21 GMT
Lines: 40
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
x-attn: jns

To: comp-protocols-iso-x400@uunet.uu.net@munnari.oz
Path: syacus!andrewf
From: andrewf@syacus.acus.oz (Andrew Friedman)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: X400 problems between DEC's MRX and DG's
Summary: Secrets contained in profiles
Keywords: O/Rnames NBS NIST profiles interoperability
Message-ID: <853@syacus.acus.oz>
Date: 16 Jul 90 04:54:31 GMT
References: <33587.269e46c2@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Reply-To: andrewf@syacus.oz (Andrew Friedman)
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
Lines: 25


In article <33587.269e46c2@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> osa538b@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Alan Chee) writes:
>
[description of interop problem deleted]
>
>Of course, we have DG and DEC looking into it. Mean time, I was wondering if
>anyone else have come across such problems or is there some unknown limit to
>number of addressees in the X400 protocols ?
>

Limits are typically not documented in the X.400 (1984) set of
standards, for that you need to know the limits imposed by the profile
that the implementations have been built or configured for.  Assuming
the machines have been configured for the NIST profile then the limit is
32K-1 recipients.

You might like to check with your vendors, if these two implementations have
performed the OSInet test that tests whether implementations support a large
number of receipients. Alternatively, some OSInet folks might like to
say.

>Alternatively, could the vendor implementation be the cause ? I actually seen
>log messages larger (in body text) gone thru successfully but short/medium
>messages with large distribution list have held up the sessions.

Yes.