Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway
From: avr@mtgzx.att.com (a.v.reed)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Telemail, MCI, AT&T Mail Interconnection!
Message-ID: <telecom-v09i0169m08@vector.dallas.tx.us>
Date: 19 May 89 20:32:44 GMT
Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ
Lines: 29
Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us
X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 169, message 8 of 8

In article <telecom-v09i0168m04@vector.dallas.tx.us>, bg0d+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Bernard Goldsmith) writes:

> ATTMail has been disappointing, but its growth has accelerated MCIMail's
> expansion of services.  MCIMail support is MUCH better than ATT's, and
> the protocol is much more rational.

I wonder - what exactly is this "protocol"? From a machine
registered with AT&T Mail, you send a letter by invoking your
favorite mailer - whatever that happens to be - with an address
like attmail!adamreed or attmail!othermachine!user. For more
complicated stuff, I use ksh functions, like this one for sending
a business letter, formatted with mm macros, to a FAX:

function sendfax {
		NUMBER=$1;ATTENTION=$2;shift;shift
		(echo "To: attmail!fax!$NUMBER(/$ATTENTION)";\
			nroff -mm -rL60 -rW65 $@ | col -bx)|\
			/bin/mail attmail!dispatcher
		}

What exactly is this "much more rational protocol" from MCI Mail?
In what ways is it "more rational" than the above? Note that
while I am from AT&T BL, I am NOT a company chauvinist, and I
firmly believe that learning from everyone - definitely INCLUDING
one's competitors - is the essence of wisdom. This is a serious
request for more information, NOT a flame.

				Adam_V_Reed@att.com