Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: Neil.K.Koorland@vancouver.osiware.telecom#d#canada.ca (Neil Koorland)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: X400 problems between DEC's MRX and DG's
Message-ID: <2620002*Neil.K.Koorland@vancouver.osiware.telecom#d#canada.ca>
Date: 19 Jul 90 21:40:39 GMT
Lines: 30
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <<1181*harald.alvestrand@elab-runit>
Autoforwarded: true
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at ICS.UCI.EDU

> From: harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no
>
> Well......I had a similar problem running EAN.
> Of course, there is no connection whatsoever between DG's X.400 and EAN,
> which is commercialized as OSIWARE's Messenger.400, and the problem may have
> been solved, but still......
>

Just to clarify this very common misconception : the EAN implementation from
UBC is indeed the basis for OSIWARE's Messenger 400 X.400 product. However,
the two systems have diverged significantly since 1985 when EAN was first
commercialized.

In that time in particular, one of the features added
to Messenger 400 that still does not exist in EAN is the ability to handle
32K-1 recipients (in order to conform to the NIST and EWOS profiles). EAN
has a documented limit of 256 recipients. The problem described therefore
would not occur with Messenger 400, which regularly handles large recipient
lists.

I would be happy to expand on other major differences between the two systems
"offline" if anybody is interested.

Neil Koorland
Director of Research
OSIware Inc.
4370 Dominion St
Burnaby B.C.
CANADA
V5G 4L7