Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: hta@isolde.er.sintef.no (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Re: Addressibility of UAs? Message-ID: <1991May10.074120.20259@ugle.unit.no> Date: 10 May 91 07:48:01 GMT References: <154581@pyramid.pyramid.com> <154671@pyramid.pyramid.com> Reply-To: harald.alvestrand@delab.sintef.no Organization: ELAB-RUNIT, SINTEF, Norway Lines: 40 Approved: usenet@ics.uci.edu x-attn: jns ReSent-From: Re-sent but not originated by Jerry Sweet ReSent-To: mhsnews@ics.uci.edu I have personally worked on a system where we had 3 different types of MTA routing on names within one namespace. The setup was: 2 EAN MTAs giving service to users 1 M.PLUS MTA handling external communication on X.400 1 IDA SENDMAIL MTA (OK, it's not X.400, but it is an MTA :-) handling RFC-822 communication and user services We have a bunch of scripts generating tables from a single "alias file" for all 3 systems. The verdict so far is that: - It works! - It loops :-( With these particular versions of the programs, none of the pieces were able to add trace to the message that survived the transfers between them, and no other loop detection was available. (Keywords: - X.400(84) has standard trace only on PRMD/ADMD boundaries - M.PLUS in its antique version that we use stripped trace when routing from X.400 to Sendmail) We are thinking about throwing it all out and replacing it with PP. Conclusion: I recommend this kind of thing ONLY if you can do proper loop detection. The University of Oslo is serving several namespaces using one PP MTA. It makes moving people around within the university much easier. So, yes, you can do both things, and it is very useful to do so, but doing it in a mixed environment is a pain, because of the multiplicity of tables involved. -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand Harald.Alvestrand@delab.sintef.no C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=sintef;OU=delab;S=alvestrand;G=harald +47 7 59 70 94