Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!mips!bridge2!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.UK (Steve Kille)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Re: RFC-1148/2: what about underlines
Message-ID: <974.669031225@UK.AC.UCL.CS>
Date: 15 Mar 91 10:03:29 GMT
Lines: 26
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 14 Mar 91 16:50:47 +0100. <9103141550.AA02693@jerry.inria.fr>
Phone: +44-71-380-7294

A check on our system here leads to similar results.  The feature is used,
although not extensively (DECNet addressing, quoating spaces in 1148, and
various oddments).

You conclude from this that it is not used much, and that the feature is
avoidable, and so it does not matter.

My conclusions are very different.  First, the feature is used for some real
amount of valid traffic. I'm sure that the originators and recipients of
these messages would not like to hear your dismissal of the validity of
their traffic.   It clearly does not give undue problems as:
   - the traffic exists and flows
   - we have not had lots of complaints from X.400 users who cannot
   	access parts of the 822 world


Second, that because it is used, we should make sure that the feature is
widely and sensibly supported.  The host requiremetns is the means to
achieve this.

As a consequence, I should feel free to use the feature to make 1148 work in
the best possible manner.  By this, I mean the best service for those sites
(the majority) that correctly support the host requirements in this area.


Steve