Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU!fair
From: fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Incredible headers in AT&T "X.400"
Message-ID: <17992@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 24-Mar-87 04:36:27 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.17992
Posted: Tue Mar 24 04:36:27 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Mar-87 00:53:16 EST
References: <1907@hoptoad.uucp> <57200001@gorgo.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: USENET Protocol Police, Western Gateway Division
Lines: 16
Xref: utgpu comp.mail.headers:157 news.sysadmin:77
Summary: X.400 is not the standard on this network.

Steve Blasingame of AT&T asserts that the CCITT X.400 mail standard is
here to stay. While this is likely the case (as much as some people
might otherwise wish that it would go away), it is not the standard
used by the UUCP network, the BITNET, the MAILNET, the USENET or the
ARPA Internet. If AT&T wishes to continue to communicate with any of
the networks that I just listed, the relevant standard for mail header
format is RFC822, not X.400.

For those sites that *insist* upon running X.400 mailers, I strongly
suggest that you obtain RFC987, which lists mappings between X.400 and
RFC822, and implement the recommendations therein. To fail to do so
will be to fail to communicate.

	holding out the forlorn hope that someone in AT&T is listening,

	Erik E. Fair	ucbvax!fair	fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu