Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: smart@manta.mel.dit.csiro.au (Robert Smart) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Re: 2nd Newsletter from the Internet X.400 Project. Message-ID: <1991May18.234611.29442@mel.dit.csiro.au> Date: 20 May 91 23:10:38 GMT References: <910517112138*/G=Alf/S=Hansen/OU=cs/O=uw-madison/PRMD=xnren/C=us/@MHS> Organization: CSIRO DIT (Melb.) Lines: 27 Approved: usenet@ics.uci.edu x-attn: jns X-Previously-To: comp-protocols-iso-x400@uunet.uu.net ReSent-From: Re-sent but not originated by Jerry Sweet ReSent-To: mhsnews@ics.uci.edu In article <910517112138*/G=Alf/S=Hansen/OU=cs/O=uw-madison/PRMD=xnren/C=us/@MHS> Alf.Hansen@pilot.cs.wisc.edu (Alf Hansen) writes: > >" It was agreed that RFC822 addresses should be expressed using X.400 > domain defined attributes. Furthermore, a special PRMD named "Internet" > will be defined to facilitate the specification of RFC822 addresses. > For example, an X.400 user will address an RFC822 recipient by > constructing an X.400 address such as: > > /c=us/admd= /prmd=Internet/dd.RFC-822=user(a)some.place.edu/ It is sensible to use c=us, but I hope x.400 mtas in other countries will have the sense to deliver to a local Internet gateway. A question: is it possible to use this address format as the X.400 address of X.400 mail users within the Internet? The reason I would like it done that way is that people would then have exactly the same address (modulo syntactic isomorphism) for both X.400 and rfc-822 mail. In fact I would like UAs in the Internet X.400 world to allow the above address to be entered as "user@some.place.edu". If we could switch to X.400 while keeping our familiar addresses then X.400 would have a MUCH better chance of being accepted. And I can't see any reason why not: it is not as if those cumbersome X.400 addresses were ever meant to be used by X.400 users. Bob Smart