Xref: utzoo comp.misc:3132 comp.std.misc:41 comp.mail.misc:1179 comp.mail.uucp:1653 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!apollo!marc From: marc@apollo.COM (Marc Gibian) Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.std.misc,comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Standardizing Email? Keywords: X.400 Message-ID: <3de9ba84.166d8@apollo.COM> Date: 17 Aug 88 13:52:00 GMT References: <788@vsi.UUCP> <38@volition.dec.com> Reply-To: marc@apollo.UUCP (Marc Gibian) Distribution: comp Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA Lines: 24 Having spent some significant time working with mail systems, and most recently X.400, I feel I need to put my two cents into this discussion. The two major distinctions between the familiar RFC822 mail standard and X.400 to me seems to be: 1) Technology - X.400 uses a technological approach to information exchange that is very different from that used by RFC822. The X.400 approach is closely matched to the facilities and concepts provided by the OSI model. 2) Functionality - X.400 defines a very robust message passing capability that addresses the current and future needs of the computing community. It incorporates facilities for dealing with many message contents, not just simple text, acknowledging that mail is no longer made up on simple text. In this world of graphics, voice mail, and complex structured documents, it is very nice to have a standard that provides a path to providing a mail facility that permits exchange of these things. One final comment. X.400 is complex, and not the easiest to read. But I have found it to be one of the better on the international standards in terms of readability, completeness, and extensibility. I look forward enthusiastically to using an X.400 based mail system and only wish it would arrive sooner. Marc S. Gibian email: marc@apollo.com or marc@apollo.uucp