Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com ("Carl S. Gutekunst")
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: Addressibility of UAs?
Message-ID: <154671@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 7 May 91 22:31:14 GMT
References: <154581@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 14
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 <mhsnews-request@ics.uci.edu>
ReSent-To: mhsnews@ics.uci.edu


In article <154581@pyramid.pyramid.com> I wrote:
>In the X.400 implementations I am examining, there appear to be two distinct
>ways of addressing users or access units.... Any comments? Is one of these
>more "right" than the other?

The E-mail I'm getting suggests that I didn't phrase the question well; all
have essentially said, "You can do it any way you like, because the Blue Book
doesn't specify." But I already knew that.

I'm asking for people's opinions and experiences. Particularly if you have
experience administrating both (say, a Retix X.400 and a PP site.)

<csg>