home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!uknet!mcsun!chsun!poole
- From: poole@chsun.chuug.ch (Simon Poole)
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
- Subject: Re: X400 address
- Message-ID: <1992Nov5.112251.17678@chsun.chuug.ch>
- Date: 5 Nov 92 11:22:51 GMT
- References: <921104131114.16483@maverick.ssf-sys.DHL.COM>
- Organization: CHUUG/EUnet
- Lines: 33
- X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
-
- 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
-