Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!mintaka!yale!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: usenet%planet@uunet.uu.NET
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9007160827.aa27327@piglet.planet.bt.co.uk>
Date: 17 Jul 90 02:46:40 GMT
Lines: 29
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
x-attn: jns

Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Path: usenet
From: tim@piglet.planet.bt.co.uk (Tim Maude,B81 G61,6734,)
Subject: Re: X400 problems between DEC's MRX and DG's
Message-ID: <1990Jul16.072653.27282@planet.bt.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@planet.bt.co.uk (Usenet News Manager)
Reply-To: tim@piglet.planet.bt.co.uk
Organization: RT743, BT Research Labs, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, UK.
References: <33587.269e46c2@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 07:26:53 GMT

From article <33587.269e46c2@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, by osa538b@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Alan Chee):
>
>
> 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 ?
>
The limit that is usually set on the size of a recipient list is
32K-1. I believe that is what the profiles say it should be - so
therer should be no problem with your list of 100.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Maude  RT7431                        email: tim@planet.bt.co.uk
British Telecom Research Laboratories    phone: +44 473 646734
Martlesham Heath                         fax:   +44 473 642163
Ipswich   IP5 7RE    U.K.
-------------------------------------------------------------------