Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com ("Carl S. Gutekunst") Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Addressibility of UAs? Message-ID: <154581@pyramid.pyramid.com> Date: 7 May 91 01:52:32 GMT Reply-To: "Carl S. Gutekunst" Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA Lines: 30 Approved: usenet@ics.uci.edu x-attn: jns X-Previously-To: comp-protocols-iso-x400@decwrl.dec.com ReSent-From: Re-sent but not originated by Jerry Sweet ReSent-To: mhsnews@ics.uci.edu Either this is a religious question, or I'm just totally confused. :-) In the X.400 implementations I am examining, there appear to be two distinct ways of addressing users or access units: - The MTA is identified by the entire O/R name, except for the personal name. Within that particular MTA, users and other access units are addressed only by the personal name. If the same network node is to be responsible for, say, two different organization units, then either two MTAs have to be run concurrently, or some form of kludge applied to the MTA (like aliases for components of the O/R name). - The MTA controls little more than the country code, ADMD, and PRMD. Each user is assigned a full O/R name. Thus one MTA can be responsible for as many different logical domains, orgnization names, organization units, and so on as there is room in the routing tables. The first scheme is what I am used to in UNIX and most PC mailers: one MTA is never responsible for more than one fully qualified domain. The second scheme is obviously more flexible, although it seems to come at the price of dragging along a large volume of information for each user; it also seems vulnerable to configuration errors. And the first scheme can achieve the same flexability by running multiple MTAs on the same network node, which should be simple if the design has been done correctly. Any comments? Is one of these more "right" than the other? Anyone out there have administrative experience with both?