🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug31.140004.4374@news.lrz-muenchen.de> Michael.Storz@lrz.lrz-muenchen.dbp.de writes:
> In article <id.ZIRS.GD@ferranti.com>, peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
> |> 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.

> Sorry, I do not understand these sentences, the information in them seem to be
> very strange to me.

> 1) Why should the gateway put an address in the sender field?

So that the recipient can reply to the message. It has to put *something*
from the X.400 sender address in the RFC822 From line.

> 2) What do you mean with unambiguous address?

I mean I'll get mail from "Joe.Blow@foo.bar.something.something" and when I
reply to it I get a bounce from the X.400 gatweway telling me there are half
a dozen Joe Blows at foo.bar.

> 3) Why do you think that X.400 does not know such thing like an unambiguous 
>    address?

An X.400 address is more like a pattern. It specifies search criteria in
greater and greater detail, but there seems to be no fixed subset of an
address that uniquely specifies a recipient.

> 4) What are you doing with an address of the sender field in a reply?

I'm putting it in my "To" field.
-- 
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