Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!mark From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers Subject: Re: Incredible headers in AT&T "X.400" mail gateway Message-ID: <3492@cbosgd.ATT.COM> Date: Sun, 29-Mar-87 23:25:16 EST Article-I.D.: cbosgd.3492 Posted: Sun Mar 29 23:25:16 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 31-Mar-87 01:12:03 EST References: <1907@hoptoad.uucp> <717@sl10c.concurrent.co.uk> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Oh Lines: 30 In article <717@sl10c.concurrent.co.uk> alan@concurrent.co.uk (Alan Young) writes: >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. There is an NBS committee currently working on an NBS standard to map between 822 and X.400. They used RFC 987 as a starting point, but it appears there were a few bugs in 987 they are resolving. AT&T is on the committee, and I expect they will probably base a future version of their internal MTA standard on the NBS result. But please realize that MTA predates RFC 987, and they see no point in 987-ifying MTA with the NBS standard coming up. Also, MTA has extensions that aren't in 987. >To: is like the From_ line (often seen as >From) - it's an envelope field, specifying who this copy of the message it to be delivered to. X.400 has several message-id's, and the UA Message ID is just one of them, as I understand it. Mark