Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!cbosgd!mark
From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: net.mail,net.internat
Subject: Re: Domains: Multiple names OK? (really, decommissioning of nicknames)
Message-ID: <2530@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 15:26:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2530
Posted: Wed Sep 10 15:26:48 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Sep-86 22:04:29 EDT
References: <566@mecc.UUCP> <2502@cbosgd.UUCP> <3920@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Oh
Lines: 27
Xref: mnetor net.mail:1133 net.internat:286

In article <2303@utai.UUCP> lamy@utai.UUCP (Jean-Francois Lamy) writes:
>Just what are you complaining about?  Such information would be useful
>only for querying a registry, and I've never had to use anything
>like this in the system I've been using for 2 years (EAN).  
>
>In fact, the X.400 networks in Canada, Norway, Sweden, Italy and
>Switzerland all use domain-based addressing exclusively, and
>gatewaying is absolutely transparent (even to .uucp, .edu, .com,
>.bitnet and some of .uk).

This comes as a surprise to me, having been told by Europeans that
EAN is not really very X.400.  (It's an ARPA style domain mail
system with an X.400 MTA interface.)  Now I happen to LIKE ARPA-style
domain systems, but the last I heard, EAN-style systems would have
great difficulty sending mail to a true X.400 spirit system with
arbitary attributes.  (Perhaps EAN has fixed this since I heard.)
I also understood that while EAN was being installed in many
European sites, it was because there was nothing else available,
and Europe was writing some more X.400 spirited software which
they planned to use instead of EAN.  And I would be very surprised
to find out that the X.400 networks themselves were set up to use
domains as the network addressing standard.  (It would be a pleasant
surprise, however.)

Perhaps some folks in Europe can set the record straight.

	Mark