Xref: utzoo comp.misc:3113 comp.std.misc:35 comp.mail.misc:1168 comp.mail.uucp:1639
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu!karl
From: karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.std.misc,comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Standardizing Email?
Message-ID: <20063@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 16 Aug 88 14:38:43 GMT
References: <788@vsi.UUCP> <1380@cloud9.UUCP> <3437@phri.UUCP> <3611@polya.Stanford.EDU> <8272@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Lines: 16
In-reply-to: jrmacmillan@watdragon.waterloo.edu's message of 16 Aug 88 06:22:34 GMT

jrmacmillan@watdragon.waterloo.edu writes:
   Keep in mind that they don't really have much choice; if they come up
   with something and then "you stupid Americans" do it differently, they
   are essentially steam-rollered into changing.

How is that?  RFC821 and RFC822 are dated August 1982, which predates
(I believe) X.400.  Within the US, RFC822 is quoted as The Truth of
Mail Formats rather often, but it's being somewhat ignored (it seems)
by X.400 people.

Someone across the cubicle wall just speculated the X.400 constitutes
an extreme case of NIH syndrome.

Food for thought, and
open to correction,
--Karl