Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway From: Juha.Heinanen@funet.fi (Juha Heinanen) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Re: X.400 Questions Message-ID: Date: 4 Apr 91 20:59:53 GMT References: <910402094828*@MHS> Organization: FUNNET Project, Finland. Lines: 16 Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU Nntp-Posting-Host: funet.fi In-Reply-To: Alf.Hansen@pilot.cs.wisc.edu's message of 2 Apr 91 22:40:27 GMT x-attn: jns ReSent-From: Jerry Sweet ReSent-To: mhsnews@ICS.UCI.EDU In article <910402094828*@MHS> Alf.Hansen@pilot.cs.wisc.edu (Alf Hansen) writes: X.400 itself it not more expensive to maintain than any other mail system. A collection of different mail systems interconnected via gateways, is expensive to maintain. Also, users lose functionality when the message passes a gatway. My conclusion is: Let us minimize the number of gateways. I don't agree with this. An SMTP mail system doesn't require any manual configuration of neighbor MTA it communicates with since there is DNS. In X.400 world you must make explicit agreements between MTAs that exchange messages and configure the relevant connection information manually into the tables. This is true at least as long as there is no directory system available for X.400. -- -- Juha Heinanen, FUNET, Finland, jh@funet.fi, +358 49 500958