Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-tis!cwi.nl!dfk From: dfk@cwi.nl (Daniel Karrenberg) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway Subject: Re: Proposed delta to RFC 987 Message-ID: <8807041017.AA10964@sering.cwi.nl> Date: 4 Jul 88 13:17:16 GMT References: <88Jul1.235445edt.10@neat.ai.toronto.edu> Sender: root@tis.llnl.gov Distribution: inet Organization: The Internet Lines: 26 Approved: post-x400-gateway@tis.llnl.gov > My (perhaps faulty) impression is that the loud YES came from: > - someone with a lot of Internet experience (MRC), i.e. from a homogeneous > environment where source routes are superfluous (ideally at least, modulo > politics and %-hacks) > - someone with a lot of UUCP/BITNET background (Piet) whose experiences are > different from mine. There was another YES from me (sent to Steve privately). Reasons: I like gateways to simplify addresses in the domains a message is relayed to. They shouldn't of course be simplified beyond "replyability". My experiences with users and the actual problems they have is that this creates the least problems. Yes, I agree that it sometimes "hides" information from an experienced user but you can't have it all. Background: Running UUCP/BITNET/Internet gateways for some five years. As to your call for a textual representation for X.400 addresses: We have it. It's specified in RFC987. Cheers Daniel