home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!LRZnews!cd1.lrz-muenchen.de!a2824as
- From: a2824as@cd1.lrz-muenchen.de (Michael Storz)
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso
- Subject: Re: OSI == second system syndrome
- Message-ID: <1992Aug31.140004.4374@news.lrz-muenchen.de>
- Date: 31 Aug 92 14:00:04 GMT
- References: <1992Aug26.154940.14823@sequent.com> <BtMtov.9xK@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <id.ZIRS.GD@ferranti.com>
- Sender: news@news.lrz-muenchen.de (Mr. News)
- Reply-To: Michael.Storz@lrz.lrz-muenchen.dbp.de
- Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum Muenchen, Germany
- Lines: 26
-
- 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?
- 2) What do you mean with unambiguous address?
- 3) Why do you think that X.400 does not know such thing like an unambiguous
- address?
- 4) What are you doing with an address of the sender field in a reply?
-
- --
-
- Michael Storz
- ================================================================================
- ! X.400 : G=michael;S=storz;OU1=lrz;
- Leibniz-Rechenzentrum ! P=lrz-muenchen;A=dbp;C=de
- Barer Str. 21 ! RFC822: storz@lrz.lrz-muenchen.dbp.de
- 8000 Muenchen 2 ! Fax : ++ 49 89 2809460
- Germany ! Tel : ++ 49 89 2105 7420
- ================================================================================
-