Article View: comp.mail.headers
Article #417Re: Incredible headers in AT&T "X.400" mail gateway
From: alan
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1987 08:28
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1987 08:28
15 lines
1410 bytes
1410 bytes
In article <1907@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>I also propose that standard header names and syntax be used for
>standard header lines, e.g. "To:" rather than ">To:" and "Message-ID:"
>rather than "Ua-Message-Id:". I also find it curious that they
>actually followed the RFC822 standard by using "X-" as a prefix on
>local header fields -- but only for one of the nine nonstandard headers
>they added.
There is a standard for "Mapping between X.400 and RFC822" by S. E.
Kille of University College London, June 1986, UCL Technical Report 120,
Request for Comments (RFC) 987. It avoids almost all the nasties you
cite above. Perhaps it would be nice if AT&T adopted it.
Regards,
Alan Young awy@concurrent.co.uk or ...!{backbone}!ukc!concurrent!awy
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<717@sl10c.concurrent.co.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!brl-adm!seismo!mcvax!ukc!tcom!concurrent!alanReferences:
<1907@hoptoad.uucp>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!brl-adm!seismo!mcvax!ukc!tcom!concurrent!alan From: alan@concurrent.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers Subject: Re: Incredible headers in AT&T "X.400" mail gateway Message-ID: <717@sl10c.concurrent.co.uk> Date: Fri, 20-Mar-87 03:28:22 EST Article-I.D.: sl10c.717 Posted: Fri Mar 20 03:28:22 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 22-Mar-87 20:38:58 EST References: <1907@hoptoad.uucp> Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp (ESDG), Slough, U.K. Lines: 15 Summary: X.400 <-> RFC822 mapping standard available.