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