Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway From: osmith@acorn.co.UK (Owen Smith) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Re: X.400 Questions Message-ID: <6189@acorn.co.uk> Date: 3 Apr 91 00:57:35 GMT References: <9103251645.2.11740@cup.portal.com> Distribution: comp Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England Lines: 29 Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU x-attn: jns X-Previously-To: w@acorn.co.UK ReSent-From: Jerry Sweet ReSent-To: mhsnews@ICS.UCI.EDU In article <9103251645.2.11740@cup.portal.com> Will%cup.portal.com%portal@uunet.uu.net writes: >2) I've noticed that a lot of vendors are using X.400 as a way to >gateway between different proprietary email systems (as opposed to >incorporating X.400 style addresses directly into the user interface >of the email product). Is my observation correct? In the case of >using X.400 as a gateway and not incorporating X.400 style addresses >into the user interface, does it then become the duty of the X.400 >administrator to setup a correspondence in the gateway between the >X.400 name and each of the corresponding names in the proprietary email >system? This makes me think that X.400 would be expensive to maintain. Your observation is correct. A lot of vendors do use X.400 merely to gateway. Yes this can cause a lot of system management overhead (I know because I had to do it in my precious job). On the other hand, if you are lucky, or you plan carefully, or both, you can get away with algorithmic mappings or site aliases with username only subsitution. These kind of facilities make life a lot easier, although can be restrictive unless you have full proxy mappings as well. Data General's DG/X.400 gateway to CEO has the site alias and algorithmic mappings, but doesn't have proxy mappings. Data General's CS/X.400 (part of Communications Server) does have proxy mappings but is rather weak on the site alias and algorithmic stuff. Also last time I heard you couldn't actually buy CS/X.400. Owen. The views expressed are my own and are not necessarily those of Acorn.