Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: Christian.Huitema@mirsa.inria.fr (Christian Huitema)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: Sending mail from internet to x400 networks
Message-ID: <9101160904.AA09954@jerry.inria.fr>
Date: 16 Jan 91 09:36:19 GMT
Lines: 35
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of 15 Jan 91 16:50:32 -0500.
             <910115165030>

>> Hello Alf -- Thought that in RFC987/1148, we used "/" instead of ";",
>> just because ";" is much more troublesome in RFC822 addresses.  When did
>> this change?  I have been seeing the ";" used exclusively in examples
>> now for several months?  What is going on here?  Best...\Stef
>
>Stef,
>
>I try to make my examples as implementation-independent as possible.
>.....The only implementation independent "standard"
>covering this issue, that I know about, is the RARE document
>(I forgot the name) written by Ruediger Grimm and Denise Heagerty
>about X.400 address notation.

Alf,

You must be kidding! The whole discussion was about mapping between X.400 and
RFC-822 addresses. And the relevant documents here, at least for the RFC-822
side, are RFC-987 and RFC-1048. There is a lot of difference between:
	/C=xx/ADMD=yy/PRMD=pp/O=foo/S=bar/@random.gateway.top
and	"C=xx; ADMD=yy; PRMD=pp; O=foo; S=bar;"@random.gateway.top
when seen from a third party gateway "other.gateway.pot". The first form will
get map to:
	<C=xx; ADMD=yy; PRMD=pp; O=foo; S=bar;>
while the other one will just baffle the gateway and get map to something like
<DD.RFC-822=(q)C=xx(059) ADMD=yy(059) PRMD=pp(059) O=foo(059)
S=bar(059)(q)(a)random.gateway.top; ORG=other; PRMD=gateway; ADMD=aaa; C=cc;>

In fact, you are precisely mixing user interfaces and network forms, making the
assumption that the gateway works "through the user interface"!

A big boy like you!

Tuut tuut!

Christian Huitema