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: <1991May22.030158.15389@mel.dit.csiro.au>
Date: 22 May 91 19:21:41 GMT
References: <1991May18.234611.29442@mel.dit.csiro.au> <910521115026*/G=Alf/S=Hansen/OU=cs/O=uw-madison/PRMD=xnren/C=us/@MHS>
Organization: CSIRO DIT (Melb.)
Lines: 44
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 <mhsnews-request@ics.uci.edu>
ReSent-To: mhsnews@ics.uci.edu


Firstly I'd like to apologise for my message about the Australian
situation. It was a Followup in news and I set the distribution to "aus".
Possibly when news groups have pseudo-moderator addresses that
lead to a mailing list gateway then the gateway should not accept
messages with a restricted Distribution header.

In article <910521115026*/G=Alf/S=Hansen/OU=cs/O=uw-madison/PRMD=xnren/C=us/@MHS> Alf.Hansen@pilot.cs.wisc.edu (Alf Hansen) writes:
>
>          Alf.Hansen@cs.wisc.edu
>
>and then my X.400 address looks exactly as the good old RFC-822 addresses
>SEEN FROM THE RFC-822 world.

But doesn't this mean that if someone in the X.400 world sends to

	C=us; ADMD=  ; PRMD=Internet; dd.rfc-822=Alf.Hansen(a)cs.wisc.edu

then the mail will go quite unnecessarily into rfc-822 format, then
get converted back to X.400 format to get delivered to you in your
X.400 UA. Not only is it unnecessary but it will result in lose of
information at the gateway crossings.

I maintain that it is _possible_ to devise an address format for
the use of X.400 _internally_ in the Internet which is compatible
with the rfc822-style-x400-address for the same person so that
people can switch mail protocols without changing their external
address in either realm.

Now it is probably true that the dd.rfc-822 style is not ideal
for this purpose, but I think it could work.

>By doing this, people can move from their RFC-822 mailboxes into a new
>and hopefully better X.400 address space, but seen from their friends
>in the RFC-822 world, the address will still look the same.

But the address by which you reach them from the X.400 side will
change and people who use the old address will cause messages to
go through 2 gateways and lose information. Also we are very dependant
on static tables. And the question remains: is it really necessary
for us to have these problems which are going to make transition
much harder?

Bob Smart