Xref: utzoo comp.misc:3194 comp.std.misc:57 comp.mail.misc:1205
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!ima!think!barmar
From: barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.std.misc,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Standardizing Email?
Message-ID: <26256@think.UUCP>
Date: 24 Aug 88 16:11:15 GMT
References: <788@vsi.UUCP> <79700010@p.cs.uiuc.edu> <304@pvab.UUCP> <26196@think.UUCP> <3714@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@think.UUCP
Reply-To: barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 53

In article <3714@polya.Stanford.EDU> andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>I sure hope this doesn't mean that x.400 doesn't define a canonical
>textual representation of addresses.  I rarely use a mail system to
>give addresses to other people and quite often, I don't even use a
>computer.  If x.400 addresses don't have a standard text format,
>they're useless for business cards, phone conversations, magazine
>articles, etc., and they require special handling for databases.

Sorry, but they don't.  There is nothing in X.400 regarding the user
interface to the mail system, nor does it ever even mention business
cards.  It is a standard for communication between computers.  If
magazine/journal editors want to come up with a standard printed form
for X.400 addresses, that is fine, but it should not be part of the
computer protocol standards.

By the way, I don't recall any place in RFC-822 where it specifies a
representation of addresses for use on business cards, either.  The
user@host form is only recommended for use internally by the mail
protocols; if an implementation chooses (as most have) to use it in
the user interface, that's the implementor's choice, neither
encouraged nor discouraged by the standard.  For many years I have
been using a system (a close relative to Unix) where one types
"send_mail user -at domain", because we felt that it would be more
appropriate to use the standard control argument syntax and also
because @ is the default line-kill character.  The read_mail command
on this same system displays addresses in the header as "user at
domain" because we feel it is a better human interface, and messages
are even stored this way in mailboxes.  The user@domain syntax is ONLY
employed when the message is sent out over the network.  Many other
mail system implementors have taken the easy route of using RFC-822 as
their user interface, taking advantage of the fact that RFC-822 was
designed to be human-readable.

I imagine that a typical mail-sending interface on an X.400 system
would use a form-filling interface.  It would let you fill in all the
fields you know, and if you've specified a complete enough set it will
then proceed to send the message.  Remember, one of the goals of X.400
addressing is that you NOT be required to use computer-specific
addresses, but just give an ordinary postal address (many of the X.400
designers work for European PTTs).  And even if you do have to use
machine addresses (for instance, until Directory Services is
implemented), there is no real need for a canonical representation.  A
business card could say "User BARMAR on ARPANET host THINK.COM"; in
fact, I expect that the old BARMAR@THINK.COM syntax might continue to
be used.  Someone actually sending mail would then translate that to
the appropriate syntax for their system.


Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar