Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no (Harald Tveit Alvestrand)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: The disjunct-RFC822 domain problem and DD.RFC-822
Message-ID: <2904*harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no>
Date: 25 Feb 91 13:48:47 GMT
Lines: 33
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU

Simon,
I try to feed this discussion where Steve wants it.
The problem is:

     site A<-- SMTP --->gwy B<--X400----->gwy C<--SMTP---->site D

          a_b@host.adom    SA=Bgwy;                           a_b@host.adom
                   DD.RFC-822=a(u)b(a)host.adom                          OR
                                /SA=Bgwy/DD.RFC-822=a(u)b(a)host.adom/@Cgwy

(yes, the last one gives me shudders too.....)

I THINK that there are two legal alternatives on the RHS: One where C-to-D is
sure that it is in the same namespace as A-to-B, one where it is not.
The last one may be useful for mapping local stuff like .dnet or .bitnet

In some way or another, you have to have control over mail to .adom at D,
otherwise you cannot get mail to any .adom address without specifying gateways.

If the pointer is to a valid gateway, you have no problem, things will
take the same return path even though you stripped off the gateway info.

If it is not, you are in trouble in any case.

I still fail to see the case where a gateway table is required, rather
than useful, if the routing based on DNS is set up properly (that is,
pointing to a valid gateway).

(BTW, the discussion is still not showing up in
comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway, is someone messing it up by attaching
distribution: na or equivalent silliness?)

                         harald Tveit Alvestrand