Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: piet@cwi.nl (Piet Beertema)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: Printable format (was: Re: ISO/CCITT meeting report)
Message-ID: <9008161859.AA22628@piring.cwi.nl>
Date: 16 Aug 90 19:09:38 GMT
Lines: 25
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 16 Aug 90 10:47:50 -0700 .
	<9008161047.aa01196@Obelix.TWG.COM>


	`david@twg.com' just isn't a very good identifier.
	I happen to like it, and that is what my business card says.
The discussion was about formats, not identifiers.
You have that address on your business card, you can
communicate it to others, it can be easily typed in
and it suits the purpose of getting mail to you.

	But there's also about 7-8 other `david's in the company and,
	in fact, I'm the newest one.
Well, if you mailer can handle it, then why not use
the David.Herron@twg.com notation?

	Furthermore there are other companies around whose initials
	could be "TWG". For instance a computer company in Vancouver BC
	(I think) has the "TWG" name over in UUCP-land all to themselves
That has nothing to do with RFC822 addressing. It's
just a matter of how it's used. Dropping the old
3-letter top level domains in favour of the ISO3166
2-letter top level domains could already considerably
reduce the confusion. Without C=US, just ORG=TWG would
be just as confusing.


	Piet