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