Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bbn!gatech!utkcs2!cygnusx1!moore From: moore@cygnusx1.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Email to CompuServe? Message-ID: <753@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> Date: 11 Feb 89 01:36:22 GMT References: <114800001@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> <1354@etive.ed.ac.uk> Sender: news@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu Reply-To: moore@cygnusx1.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) Organization: CS Dept -- University of TN, Knoxville Lines: 29 In article <1354@etive.ed.ac.uk> jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) writes: =In article =karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: = =>Others: Rick Adams mentioned at the UUNET/Usenet BOF last week at =>Usenix that he is working on getting some of the other commercial =>providers to gateway through UUNET. In large part, he is running into =>parochial attitudes demanding X.400 mailers, which he doesn't run. He = =Pardon? It is parochial to demand the use of the international =standard? Yes. UUNET doesn't do X.400 mail. Neither do most of the systems with which UUNET exchanges mail. Every time you have to translate a message from one format to another, you lose information and induce errors. It doesn't make sense for a ``commercial provider'' to insist on an additional layer of translation on every message that passes through its gateway to the rest of the world. If the provider already uses some subset of X.400 (and I suspect that most of those in the U.S. do not), then the translation (to, say, RFC822) is better done by the provider than by UUNET, because the provider is more aware of the particulars of its implementation. -- Keith Moore UT Computer Science Dept. Internet/CSnet: moore@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu 107 Ayres Hall, UT Campus BITNET: moore@utkvx Knoxville Tennessee 37996-1301 Telephone: +1 615 974 0822