🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <id.TPVS._L3@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>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.
>

(stuff deleted)
 
>> 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.
>

(rest deleted)

Ok my two cents worth.....

The issue raised is the perception of an increasing amount of problems in 
gatewaying between RFC822 mail, which is widely used in the Internet, and to 
X.400 mail users (Internet & Commercially based). I don't know if there are
more problems than 'normal' or whether it only appears so. Let's say for
argument's sake that there are increasing problems.  

Why is this happening? And what do we do to make things better?

Without alot of 'hard' data it is difficult to find the exact cause of the
problems. My assumption is that there are now appearing alot more 
RFC822 <-> X.400 gateways on the Internet. Alot of these new gateways are 
not following the EXISTING operational procedures.

To make things better, email postmasters should try and use only 
'well operated' gateways. What is a 'well operated' gateway? 

The starting point is that any 'well operated' RFC822 <-> X.400 gateway 
must be conforming to RFC1327 and must follow the procedures defined by
the IETF X.400 OPS WG.

JIm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Romaguera
COSINE MHS Project Leader

RFC822: romaguera@cosine-mhs.switch.ch
X.400:  S=romaguera;OU=cosine-mhs;O=switch;P=switch;A=arcom;C=ch

NetConsult AG, Mettlenwaldweg 20a, 3037 Herrenschwanden, Switzerland.
Tel: +41 31 235 750, Fax: +41 31 235 792
---------------------------------------------------------------------