Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: osmith@acorn.co.UK (Owen Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway
Subject: Re: Confirmed Reports and Return of Contents (was: The disjunct-RFC822
Message-ID: <5894@acorn.co.uk>
Date: 19 Mar 91 21:56:06 GMT
References: <16MAR199114:37:11NTIN36@UK.AC.RUTHERFORD.GEC-B>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England
Lines: 21
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
x-attn: jns
X-Previously-To: w@acorn.co.UK
ReSent-From: Jerry Sweet <ifip-gtwy-request@ICS.UCI.EDU>
ReSent-To: ifip-gtwy@ICS.UCI.EDU


In article <16MAR199114:37:11NTIN36@UK.AC.RUTHERFORD.GEC-B>
NTIN36@gec-b.rutherford.ac.UK (Jim Craigie) writes:

>Subject: Re: The disjunct-RFC822 domain problem and DD.RFC-822

In my experience, very few X.400 MTA implementations bother to do Return of
Contents when generating reports. So relying on it is probably a bad scheme.

Also, there is a downgrading problem. The X.419 1988 to 1984 downgrade rules
specifically state that when downgrading a Report, any returned contents
should be left alone ie. not downgraded. Thus when a 1984 gateway or UA
further down the line looks at the returned contents, it may well find itself
looking at something with 1988 service elements in. Bit of a problem. In my
opinion this is a bug in the downgrade rules. Mind you, the downgrade rules
completely neglect P2, which is also a major omission.

Owen.


The views expressed are my own and are not necessarily those of Acorn.