Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: Alf.Hansen@pilot.cs.wisc.edu (Alf Hansen) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Re: "Internet to X.400" problem. Message-ID: <910523113458*/G=Alf/S=Hansen/OU=cs/O=uw-madison/PRMD=xnren/C=us/@MHS> Date: 23 May 91 17:14:37 GMT References: <9105231555.AA08078@jerry.inria.fr> Lines: 42 Approved: usenet@ics.uci.edu X400-Originator: Alf.Hansen@pilot.cs.wisc.edu Content-Identifier: 910523113458 In-Reply-To: <9105231555.AA08078@jerry.inria.fr > X400-Received: by mta pilot.cs.wisc.edu in /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/; Relayed; Thu, 23 May 1991 12:13:31 +0000 X400-Received: by /PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/; Relayed; Thu, 23 May 1991 11:35:00 +0000 X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=xnren/ADMD= /C=us/;hansen675016500.63hermit.cs.uw] Christian, > I merely wanted to warn you that there will be cases when Internet mail users > see the address of they correspondant expressed in X.400 format, e.g. on the > business card of the enthusiastic RARE MHS supporters. These MHS users will > not necessarily have access to the mapping tables, even if these tables happen > to be stored in the X.500 DIT or in the Internet DNS. And a (fallback) solution > that does not require them to "flip a coin, guess a mapping" would certainly > be useful. > > In fact, one can certainly envisage scenarios of the kind: > > sends an E.Mail to > /G=Alf/S=Hansen/OU=cs/O=uw-madison/PRMD=xnren/C=us/@MHS > This is routed to the nearest MHS gateway, which routes it through X.400. > > /G=Alf/S=Hansen/X.400=etc.../ receives the mail, and replies. The reply is > routed through the nearest Internet gateway. That gateway is fully supplied > with tons of mapping tables, and the reply arrive to > with the a properly mapped "From" address, e.g. . > Joe User is at this stage very happy, and does not use the "unmapped" form > anymore. > > I imagine that if you fail to organize this receipe for happiness in your MHS > specs, some of the IETF working group members are going to advocate quite > loudly that you missed something... As far as I can see, the IETF X.400 OPS WG is providing the usesr with a "receipe for happiness" as you describe above. Our scheme says that (again from the same minutes): "....Consequently, it will be necessary for RFC987 gateways to generate RFC987 address syntax occasionally" and therefore we MUST be able to handle these addresses correctly. So, if users write addresses like you describe above: /G=Alf/S=Hansen/OU=cs/O=uw-madison/PRMD=xnren/C=us/@local.gateway.somewhere because this is the best guess, and the local.gateway.somewhere is a real RFC-987/1148 gateway, it will work as you describe, and we will maintain a population of happy users. Best regards, Alf H.