Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!brl-adm!seismo!mcvax!ukc!tcom!concurrent!alan
From: alan@concurrent.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: Incredible headers in AT&T "X.400" mail gateway
Message-ID: <717@sl10c.concurrent.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 20-Mar-87 03:28:22 EST
Article-I.D.: sl10c.717
Posted: Fri Mar 20 03:28:22 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Mar-87 20:38:58 EST
References: <1907@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp (ESDG), Slough, U.K.
Lines: 15
Summary: X.400 <-> RFC822 mapping standard available.

In article <1907@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>I also propose that standard header names and syntax be used for
>standard header lines, e.g. "To:" rather than ">To:" and "Message-ID:"
>rather than "Ua-Message-Id:".  I also find it curious that they
>actually followed the RFC822 standard by using "X-" as a prefix on
>local header fields -- but only for one of the nine nonstandard headers
>they added.

There is a standard for "Mapping between X.400 and RFC822" by S. E.
Kille of University College London, June 1986, UCL Technical Report 120,
Request for Comments (RFC) 987. It avoids almost all the nasties you
cite above.  Perhaps it would be nice if AT&T adopted it.

Regards,
Alan Young	awy@concurrent.co.uk  or ...!{backbone}!ukc!concurrent!awy