🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul.Rarey@com.dhl.ssf-sys (Paul.Rarey) writes:

[Discussion of the semantics of ADMD=" " deleted]
: 
: | I don't know of -any- country where this is actually the case.
: 
: Mabey  not,  but shouldn't the community at large try to leverage  it
: into existance?  Wouldn't we be better off for it?

Sure (I would be more than happy if we could get rid of the implicit
vendor lock in in X.400 and move to a really competitive market), but
I just see a lot of practical difficulties: for example for ADMD=" " 
to be useful it requires that PRMD names to unique in a country (the bit 
you didn't quote from X.402(88) 18.3.1).

: 
: |   - if they can route to all the recipients of a message (even if
: |     they are not responsible for the address).
: 
: Is  it common practice to send probes before any message, or just  if
: they are over a certain size?

I don't know of any ADMD that uses probes,  the address is considered
valid if (this is the way PTT ADMD's seem to behave):

	- it is a PRMD in the ADMD with a mta connected to the ADMD.
or 
	- it is in an ADMD that is connected to the ADMD.

-- 
CHUUG/EUnet Switzerland				Simon Poole
Zweierstrasse 35	Tel: +41 1 291 45 80	poole@eunet.ch
CH-8004 Zuerich		Fax: +41 1 291 46 42	S=poole;P=EUnet;A=EUnet;C=CH