🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1354@etive.ed.ac.uk> jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) writes:
=In article <KARL.89Feb7090020@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu> 
=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