Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: GRZ027%DBNGMD21.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Peter Sylvester +49 228 8199645)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: Printable format (was: Re:  ISO/CCITT meeting report)
Message-ID: <"90-08-16-17:01:39.17*GRZ027"@DBNGMD21.BITNET>
Date: 16 Aug 90 15:12:49 GMT
Lines: 11
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9008161323.AA21699@GHOST.STSCI.EDU>

> My point was that there has not been a simple, etc, etc, X.400 E-mail
> address spec proffered, not that the existing RFC822 addresses do not
> meet those criteria.  A couple of earlier responders also noted this
> obvious alternative; I have to note that I thought it was so obvious that
> I did not mention it explicitly.
>
                                                  Peter
I can't resist:  It might be that the people working at the
ZPL.DFN.DBP.DE are happy with their nice short address, but all
those poor people from
THEORETISCHE-INFORMATIK.NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN.XYZTH-SCHILDA.DBP.DE