Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: pmbs@stsci.edu
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re:  Printable format (was: Re:  ISO/CCITT meeting report)
Message-ID: <9008141714.AA20435@GHOST.STSCI.EDU>
Date: 14 Aug 90 17:24:19 GMT
Lines: 35
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU

Jon's comment on printable E-mail addresses echoes exactly the sentiments
that I earlier had raised on the subject.  The issue, at bottom,
appears to be that what is most familiar and sensible to a user is
not necessarily what is required for computer handling, and further, that
user knowlege about who they want to send to does not imply (and should
not involve) any knowlege about how that mail gets routed.

By analogy, I can just imagine the reaction of the general public if the
post office announced that a wonderful new mail system was being put into
place.  It would tell you if the mail was delivered, if your friend was
on vacation, would let you send pictures and voice-mail all in one small
envelope.  The only drawback is that you would have to send along explicit
information about how to get the mail routed (New York to Europe via plane,
then truck to London, followed by a lorry to station xyz, the last bit
on foot via a mail carrier named John Smyth ...).

I suppose that a simple, readable, business-card-printable, E-mail address is
too much to ask for, but the present suggestion of /x=y/ types of addresses
that must include the public carrier and other organizational information
appears to be rather awkward and to warp the user interface to the needs
of the computer.  All these years I had thought that computers were
rather wonderful because we could warp them to the needs of humans.  Have
we lost something in this drive to provide international standards?

I recognize that some sort of directory service (ala DNS or X.500) will
eventually make some of these abberations disappear beneath a user
interface layer (whatever that might look like).  In the interim the
proposed address specifications leave a lot to be desired and offer a
number of difficulties in both presentation for human use and translation
into system use.  In my own simple way I fail to understand why some
simple variant on the existing RFC822 address form (which seems to be
handling an enormous amount of E-mail among many domains) cannot be used.
But then, I'm probably missing something obvious.

						Peter