Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: poole@chx400.switch.ch (Simon Poole) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway Subject: Re: RFC-822 traces in X.400 Message-ID: <1990Oct19.233532.27866@chx400.switch.ch> Date: 20 Oct 90 19:15:58 GMT References: Reply-To: Simon Poole Distribution: comp Organization: SWITCH Zuerich, Switzerland Lines: 26 Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU x-attn: jns ReSent-To: ifip-gtwy@ICS.UCI.EDU In article mac@dit.upm.es (Manuel Alvarez-Campana Fernandez-Corredor) writes: ........ > >On the other hand, I've never seen several of the extended headers >defined in RFC-987 in any RFC-822 message that has crossed a >X.400 <-> RFC-822 gateway. For example, "X400-Trace:", >"Autoforwarded-From:", etc. Is there any reason for this? > Say "EAN" very loudly. The problem is that at the present time there are actually very few real RFC987 gateways. There are a lot of gateways (EAN) that perform some aspects of the RFC987 address mapping, but not more (your problem is actually easy to fix, I hacked DFN-EAN to do this correctly last week). The situation will improve somewhat if more people use PP (which has it's own set of problems, but at least they tend to be more on the RFC-822 side) or other real RFC987 gateways. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Simon Poole poole@verw.switch.ch / poole@chx400.switch.ch / mcsun!chx400!poole ------------------------------------------------------------------------