🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BtMtov.9xK@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> mskuhn@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Markus Kuhn) writes:
> sch@sequent.com (Steve Hemminger) writes:
> >* User friendly.  Exchanging X.400 mail addresses is not friendly.
> >  Having to have full information about every other machine you want to
> >  talk to is not friendly (i.e Network, Transport, Session, Application
> >  ...)

> This is solved by OSI with the X.500 directory services in a very elegant
> way.

Only if you have cheap real-time access to the database. X.400 and X.500 is
a solution for rich folks or service bureaus. It doesn't scale well to low
bandwidth loosely-coupled systems.

As X.400 gets more common, I'm getting more and more bounces. Worse, I'm
getting bounces from replies to messages originated in X.400 land, where
the gateway didn't put an unambiguous address in the sender field. Because
there is no such thing as an unambiguous address in X.400.

> -A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you didn't-
> -even know existed can render your own computer unusable. (Leslie Lamport)-

Well, that's why a loosely coupled system is useful, and the basic problem
with X.500.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                               `-_-'
$ EDIT/TECO LOVE                                              'U` 
%TECO-W-OLDJOKE Not war?                        Have you hugged your wolf today?
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.      Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012       +1 713 274 5180