Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: JPALME@qz.qz.se (Jacob Palme QZ)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: O/R-address format on business cards
Message-ID: <412518*JPALME@QZ.qz.se>
Date: 19 Aug 90 17:16:30 GMT
Lines: 27
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9008161026.AA06444(a)kauai.MCL.Unisys.COM>
X400-Received: by /PRMD=QZ/ADMD=TEDE/C=SE/;
	Relayed; 19 Aug 90 18:43:35+0200


	>>For what it's worth, my $0.02 on X.400 addressing:  From what I
	>>percieve as being proposed as required address formats for input
	>>by humans to send mail to other humans it is *completely
	>>ridiculous*.  For use by computers, fine.  Humans???  Wake up.
	>>It looks like something a first year CS student would
	>>hack up for one of his projects.

	>>In my view electronic mail addressing formats should converge to
	>>those	used to address ordinary physical mail, the kind you put
	>>stamps on and	put in the mail box on the corner.
	>>Do you see ordinary people getting into "C=SE; ADMD=TEDE; PRMD=QZ"?

That the OR-address format in X.400 is very difficult for non-experts to
use is wellknown. I am however not sure if the comment above is

(a) A comment on whether the X.400 OR-address format is human-friendly
    or not.

(b) A comment on whether the proposed business card format for writing
    OR-addresses, given their present definition, is human-friendly
    or not.

It is important to distinguish between these two alternatives, since
the OR-address format has been a standard since 1984, and is (unfortu-
nately) very difficult to change now, while the business card format
can still be changed, if someone can come up with a better alternative.