Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!eecae!tank!shamash!raspail!steve
From: steve@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com (Steve Schonberger)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: RFC 987, 1026
Message-ID: <1611@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com>
Date: 14 Mar 89 23:55:25 GMT
Organization: Control Data Corporation, Arden Hills, MN
Lines: 12

Are there any plans to extend elm to support RFC 987 and 1026?  Those
are the documents that suggest a format for gatewaying between RFC 822
mail (what elm is designed for) and x.400 mail.  Most of the differences
aren't real significant, so it probably wouldn't requre a lot of change
to elm.  It would be neat to have the best RFC 822 mailer also be the
best x.400 mailer.  (I'm assuming that if it were used in x.400 mode it
would be operating with a system agent that took the readable equivalents
of all the x.400 headers, rather than the binary junk.)  What's everyone
think of this idea?

	Steve Schonberger
	steve@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com (probably)