mikej@dasys1.UUCP (Mike Johnston) (08/14/88)
Where can one find the X.400 "standard" documented?
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
! Michael R. Johnston - Franchise Data Specialist , Career Employment Svc.!
! UUCP: {cmcl2!phri,uunet} dasys1!cpmain!mikej ATNET: mikej@cpmain.uucp!
! PHONENET: (516) 285-7730 "....but it was working just yesterday......" !
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/15/88)
dts@cloud9.UUCP (Daniel Senie) writes:
-> There is a standard called X.400, which is the Message Handling Systems
-> standard. It allows dissimilar machines to exchange and transport mail.
I thought that was what RFC-822 was all about. Silly me.
--
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net
"The connector is the network"andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) (08/16/88)
In article <3437@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: >dts@cloud9.UUCP (Daniel Senie) writes: >> There is a standard called X.400, which is the Message Handling Systems >> standard. It allows dissimilar machines to exchange and transport mail. >I thought that was what RFC-822 was all about. Silly me. Yes, silly you. They're looking for "future" standards, not standards that have been used for many years. If it predates the vax, it doesn't count. Does anyone how Europe's bold leap into the 60s a couple of summers ago came out? (ISO was advertising an experimental mail system between dissimilar hosts, probably based on an X.400 predecessor. We stupid Americans had been doing that for years.) -andy UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@polya.stanford.edu (415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle
jon@chiron.UUCP (Jon L. Griffeth) (08/16/88)
As I begin, I would like to state that I am neither an expert, nor
VERY well read on this subject. The following is the result of the
short period (short for what this subject requires) I spent delving
into this subject.
First, RFC 821 and 822 are industry standards. X.400 is an international
standard being produced by CCITT and ISO.
The technical specifications can be obtained from OmniCom Publications (???).
I don't currently have the address, but I may be able to locate it quickly
enough. They're somewhere in Virginia.
X.400 is actually a series of recommendations made by CCITT concerning
the format of electronic messages and their subsequent transmission.
It references numerous other recommendations and relies heavily
on the Abstract Syntax Notation 1 (ANS.1). If anyone can tell how
to obtain information on ANS.1, I'd be greatful. I seem to have missed
it in my search.
A (possibly incomplete) list of recommendations for X.400 include:
X.400, X.402, X.403, X.407, X.408, X.411, X.413, X.419,
X.420 etc. etc. etc..
In addition, you'll need recommendations X.208, X.217, X.218, X.219 and
probably a host of others. I didn't have that much time to spend on
it and eventual gave up (for now).
The 1984 release is called the "Red Book". The 1988 release, called the
"Blue Book," is not currently available (or wasn't the last time I heard,
which was about two months ago). You shouldn't expect to see it until
sometime next year. A draft version is out, but only to selected groups.
The "Blue Book" is MUCH more extensive than the "Red Book". Also, the
authors seem to have taken a perverse pleasure in making it as unreadable
as possible (in my opinion).
I had a lot of hope for X.400. However, after hearing some comments
("X.400 is the SNA of electronic mail"), I'm no longer sure.
Jon L. Griffeth
jon@chiron.UUCP
P.S. If anyone can direct me towards a GOOD book on OSI, I would
again be greatful. OSI is the basis for an international networking
standard. Anyone wanting to learn about X.400 should learn this as
well.jrmacmillan@watdragon.waterloo.edu (John R. MacMillan) (08/16/88)
In article <3611@polya.Stanford.EDU> andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: |Does anyone how Europe's bold leap into the 60s a couple of summers |ago came out? (ISO was advertising an experimental mail system |between dissimilar hosts, probably based on an X.400 predecessor. We |stupid Americans had been doing that for years.) 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. -- John R. MacMillan jrmacmillan@dragon.waterloo.edu If the universe fits, wear it. ...!watmath!dragon!jrmacmillan
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (08/16/88)
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,
--Karldavidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (08/17/88)
There are several standards, and probably all will be used for at least
the next few years.
RFC822 - specifies a message content (header and text)
SMTP - a protocol for connecting two machines for text transfer.
(Simple Mail Transfer Protocol)
X.400 - another content specification
Many sites speak SMTP and RFC822, X.400 is less popular in the USA, and
I have reason to believe that there are a lot of buggy implementations
which won't talk to one another.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -meguy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (08/17/88)
> 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. I think the problem here is that Mr. MacMillan completely misunderstood the comment from Andy Freeman: |Does anyone how Europe's bold leap into the 60s a couple of summers |ago came out? (ISO was advertising an experimental mail system |between dissimilar hosts, probably based on an X.400 predecessor. We |stupid Americans had been doing that for years.) Mr. Freeman's comment wasn't that "we stupid Americans" had somehow "steam-rollered" Europe into picking up something that we "did differently". His comment was that "we stupid Americans" had come up with a mail system that worked between dissimilar hosts, long before ISO had ever done so - in fact, the Arpanet supported this *before* the advent of RFC821 and RFC822 - and that *ISO* had "done it differently". The result may well be some "steam-rollering" to get the SMTP users to change, thus somewhat *reversing* the situation Mr. MacMillan appears to be complaining about.
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (08/17/88)
In article <145@chiron.UUCP> jon@chiron.UUCP (Jon L. Griffeth) writes: > If anyone can tell how >to obtain information on ANS.1, I'd be greatful. I seem to have missed >it in my search. I believe ANS.1 is described in X.409, "Message Handling Systems: Presentation Transfer Syntax and Notation". However, it never actually seems to use the phrase "Abstract Syntax Notation", nor the abbreviation ANS.1. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
marc@apollo.COM (Marc Gibian) (08/17/88)
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.uucpjrmacmillan@watdragon.waterloo.edu (John R. MacMillan) (08/17/88)
In article <64445@sun.uucp> guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes: |I think the problem here is that Mr. MacMillan completely misunderstood the |comment from Andy Freeman: | ||Does anyone how Europe's bold leap into the 60s a couple of summers ||ago came out? (ISO was advertising an experimental mail system ||between dissimilar hosts, probably based on an X.400 predecessor. We ||stupid Americans had been doing that for years.) So I did. I thought he meant "they're doing it the _same way_ we did it years ago", and felt that this was not too surprising. I didn't know that the ISO had come up with something different (which seems incredibly silly until you remember that we're talking about a committee :-) |Mr. Freeman's comment wasn't that "we stupid Americans" had somehow |"steam-rollered" Europe into picking up something that we "did differently". I think I've been misunderstood too; I didn't mean that the US actively coerces the rest of the world, merely that it is such a large user/ producer/developer/etc that the rest of the world had better go along or they'll lose out. -- John R. MacMillan jrmacmillan@dragon.waterloo.edu If the universe fits, wear it. ...!watmath!dragon!jrmacmillan
mohsen@iconnect.UUCP (Mohsen Banan) (08/18/88)
In article <145@chiron.UUCP> jon@chiron.UUCP (Jon L. Griffeth) writes: > > .... >The 1984 release is called the "Red Book". The 1988 release, called the >"Blue Book," is not currently available (or wasn't the last time I heard, >which was about two months ago). You shouldn't expect to see it until >sometime next year. A draft version is out, but only to selected groups. > >The "Blue Book" is MUCH more extensive than the "Red Book". Also, the >authors seem to have taken a perverse pleasure in making it as unreadable >as possible (in my opinion). > >I had a lot of hope for X.400. However, after hearing some comments >("X.400 is the SNA of electronic mail"), I'm no longer sure. > >Jon L. Griffeth >jon@chiron.UUCP > >P.S. If anyone can direct me towards a GOOD book on OSI, I would >again be greatful. OSI is the basis for an international networking >standard. Anyone wanting to learn about X.400 should learn this as >well. I have read a few books on the subject. My favorit is: Standards for Open Systems Interconnection. McGraw-Hill Book Company ISBN 0-07-035119-8 Authors: Keith G. Knightson Terry Knowles John Larmouth In general my problems with many books on this subject is that I don't trust them. Most often the best source is the IS standards themselves. If you are just getting started, ISO7498 (X.200) is the best starting place. My two cents about X.400: It is real. It is here now. It addresses all of today's needs and some of tomorrow's. We'll see its wide spread use in the US in early 1990s. P.S. When are the Blue Books going to be ready?
kehres@tis.llnl.gov (Tim Kehres) (08/18/88)
In article <25924@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: : > I believe ANS.1 is described in X.409, "Message Handling Systems: > Presentation Transfer Syntax and Notation". However, it never > actually seems to use the phrase "Abstract Syntax Notation", nor the > abbreviation ANS.1. ASN.1 has evolved from 1984 X.409. The most current documents that I have on ASN.1 are ISO 8824 (DIS) and ISO 8825 (DIS). The specification of ASN.1 will no longer be part of the X.400 series of recommendations. Tim Kehres
nigel@modcomp.UUCP (Nigel Gamble) (08/18/88)
in article <145@chiron.UUCP>, jon@chiron.UUCP (Jon L. Griffeth) says: > X.400 is actually a series of recommendations made by CCITT concerning > the format of electronic messages and their subsequent transmission. > It references numerous other recommendations and relies heavily > on the Abstract Syntax Notation 1 (ANS.1). If anyone can tell how > to obtain information on ANS.1, I'd be greatful. I seem to have missed > it in my search. Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) is part of the Presentation Layer (layer 6) of the ISO/OSI 7 layer comms. protocol stack. The relevant ISO standards are: DIS 8824 Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) DIS 8825 Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) The corresponding CCITT document is: X.409 Message Handling Systems: Presentation Transfer Syntax and Notation (ISO documents can be obtained from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), which is the United States member body in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).) > P.S. If anyone can direct me towards a GOOD book on OSI, I would > again be greatful. OSI is the basis for an international networking > standard. Anyone wanting to learn about X.400 should learn this as > well. The best book I have found (from which the above information is taken) is "Handbook of Computer Communications Standards, Volume 1: The Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Model and OSI-related Standards" by William Stallings, published by Macmillan. -- Nigel Gamble "Everything should be made as simple as possible, MODCOMP/AEG but not simpler." Albert Einstein. uunet!modcomp!nigel
bar@dpmizar.sw.Datapoint.COM (Brian Ruptash) (08/18/88)
> DIS 8824 Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation > One (ASN.1) > DIS 8825 Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for > Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) IS 8824 and 8825 are now full-fledged International Standards. IS 8824 was published on 87.12.15, IS 8825 on 87.11.15. They should be available from your ISO member body (ANSI in the U.S., SCC in Canada). IS 8824 corresponds to JTC1/SC21 N2159, and IS 8825 to N2160, so if you already have those, you can save the fortune the national member bodies charge for the final ISs printed in Geneva... > P.S. If anyone can direct me towards a GOOD book on OSI, I would > again be greatful. OSI is the basis for an international networking > standard. Anyone wanting to learn about X.400 should learn this as > well. Stallings is OK, but by far the best one I've found is "Standards for Open Systems Interconnection", by Keith Knightson, Terry Knowles and John Larmouth, McGraw-Hill, 1988 (ISBN 0-07-035119-8). These guys are all key participants in the ISO and CCITT work, representing a cross-section of all the activities, and most certainly know their stuff. There have been several tutorials produced by the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC21 working groups on their respective projects; you may want to get a hold of those as well. -- Brian
mikulska@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Margaret Mikulska) (08/21/88)
In article <20063@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: > >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. > Well, how about RFC 987 (and 1026, addendum to 987) which is entitled "Mapping between X.400 and RFC822" ? Margaret Mikulska Department of Computer Science and Engineering, C-014 Institute for Nonlinear Science, R-002 University of California | ARPA : mikulska@cs.ucsd.edu | mem@inls1.ucsd.edu at San Diego | UUCP : sdcsvax!mikulska | BITNET : mmikulska@ucsd.bitnet La Jolla, CA 92093 | voice : (619) 534-1452
campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) (08/21/88)
In article <3437@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: }dts@cloud9.UUCP (Daniel Senie) writes: }-> There is a standard called X.400, which is the Message Handling Systems }-> standard. It allows dissimilar machines to exchange and transport mail. } }I thought that was what RFC-822 was all about. Silly me. RFC822 is incredibly primitive. It has no provisions for encoding messages with multiple parts. It has no notion of different content types -- everything must be 7-bit ASCII. It provides no way to encapsulate a message within a message. It has no provisions for non-English messages -- you must use 7-bit U.S. ASCII, and if your language uses accented or non-Latin characters, tough. It is nearly impossible to layer a real office automation system on top of RFC822, as there is no _standard_ way to mail binary files, revisable form documents, images, etc. etc. RFC822 (nee RFC733) was OK in 1973, but by now we should be eager to toss it out and move on to something with reasonable functionality. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. Internet: campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109 uucp: {husc6,mirror,think}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/23/88)
In article <1101@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >RFC822 is incredibly primitive. It has no provisions for encoding >messages with multiple parts. It has no notion of different content >types -- everything must be 7-bit ASCII. It provides no way to >encapsulate a message within a message. It has no provisions for >non-English messages -- you must use 7-bit U.S. ASCII, and if your >language uses accented or non-Latin characters, tough. > >It is nearly impossible to layer a real office automation system on >top of RFC822, as there is no _standard_ way to mail binary files, >revisable form documents, images, etc. etc. And it's quite impossible, of course, to *layer* a standard for such things on top of RFC822? (Of course, it's much more *interesting* to invent a new standard from the ground up, rather than adhering to silly, old-fashioned ideas like building on others' work and maintaining compatibility, but adults supposedly are capable of doing what's right, not just what's fun.) -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (08/23/88)
In article <304@pvab.UUCP> robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) writes: >What does an X.400 address look like? If you're asking what the equivalent to user@domain and host!host!...!user is, there isn't really such a thing, since X.400 is not a textual protocol. Both messages and the the message-transfer protocol are binary, based on structured objects. There are a variety of forms of Originator/Recipient Names (O/R Names), which might need to be used in combination in order to uniquely designate a recipient. For example, one of the formats is simply the recipient's personal name (structured into Surname, Given name, Initials, Generational qualifier), but you'd probably need to augment it with other information, such as geographical or organizational info. The intent is to eventually allow you to address electronic mail the same way you would address postal mail; a complicated distributed database (which is in the early design stage, I think) would figure out how to get it to the right electronic mailbox. There are, of course, O/R Name formats that specify specific hosts (using X.121 addresses, for example) and users on that system. Since all communication is in the form of structured objects, there won't be any ambiguous addresses. For example, on a host that implements both UUCP and Internet mail, the address host!user@domain is ambigous (it could mean either (host!user)@domain or host!(user@domain)), but this form of ambiguity is not possible in X.400 because there is no parsing involved (except, perhaps, by the user application used to create mail, but that's not the problem of the mail transfer protocol). Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (08/23/88)
In article <3677@polya.Stanford.EDU> andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: >Arpa mailers predate sendmail. X.400 is not immune to poor >implementations either, and whatever's "free" will become dominant, >whether or not it meets the standard. (Unless X.400 has an >enforcement mechanism; it may in Europe. BTW - An effective >enforcement mechanism must be able to shut down sites running >incompatible software.) The X.400 standards are being driven by the CCITT - the international association of telephone companies. In most European states, the telephone network is a regulated monopoly owned by the government. It is often called the PTT and this name can be applied generically. In some cases, users must only use telecom equipment provided by the PTT. Presumably, such equipment meets with the PTT's standards. In others, the equipment has to be tested and approved by the PTT before it can be (legally) connected to the network. Now with X.400, the PTT's will be in total control. If you wish to use the (inter)national X.400 service provided by the PTT, you will probably have two options. Either you buy the X.400 service that the PTT sells or you buy an implementation that has PTT approval because it conforms to their defined standard. If you attempt to use a non-conforming (or not approved) implementation, it will be a crime. You could be taken to court and fined - now there's a way to deal with mail systems that break the protocols! - or the PTT could disconnect (or refuse to connect) you. This will certainly be an "effective enforcement mechanism", though it's no guarantee that each PTT's interpretation of X.400 will be the same. There's nothing to stop you using a free X.400 implementation on your own network, but it'll be unlikely that the PTT's will want to know about it. Jim -- ARPA: jim%cs.strath.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa, jim@cs.strath.ac.uk UUCP: jim@strath-cs.uucp, ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!jim JANET: jim@uk.ac.strath.cs "JANET domain ordering is swapped around so's there'd be some use for rev(1)!"
andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) (08/24/88)
In article <26196@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: >In article <304@pvab.UUCP> robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) writes: >>What does an X.400 address look like? > >If you're asking what the equivalent to user@domain and >host!host!...!user is, there isn't really such a thing, since X.400 is >not a textual protocol. Both messages and the the message-transfer >protocol are binary, based on structured objects. > but this form of ambiguity is not possible in >X.400 because there is no parsing involved (except, perhaps, by the >user application used to create mail, but that's not the problem of >the mail transfer protocol). I sure hope this doesn't mean that x.400 doesn't define a canonical textual representation of addresses. I rarely use a mail system to give addresses to other people and quite often, I don't even use a computer. If x.400 addresses don't have a standard text format, they're useless for business cards, phone conversations, magazine articles, etc., and they require special handling for databases. Maybe it is time to extend 822; the conforming implementations work and its problems with non-conforming implemenations are no worse than X.400's will be. (Even if there's a PD X.400 implementation, there are a lot of people who won't run it even if you cut them off if they don't.) -andy UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@polya.stanford.edu (415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle
marc@apollo.COM (Marc Gibian) (08/24/88)
In article <3714@polya.Stanford.EDU> andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: >In article <26196@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: >>In article <304@pvab.UUCP> robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) writes: >>>What does an X.400 address look like? >> <a number of comments and questions regarding addresses in X.400> The addresses to be used in delivering an X.400 letter are specified as X.400 Originator/Recipient names, commonly refered to as O/R names. The available variants (according to my red book, granted a bit out of date) are: variant 1: Country name Administration domain name [Private domain name] [Personal name] [Organization Name] [Organizational Unit Names] [Domain-defined attributes] Note - at least one of private domain name, personal name, organization name and organizational names must be selected. variant 2 Country name Administration domain name UA unique numeric identifier [Domain-defined attributes] variant 3 Country name Administration domain name X.121 address [Domain-defined attributes] I will not expand upon the individual fields, please look at your X.400 standard to find that information. I would observe that a lot of the details are left to the implementation of the user agent (UA), though if I remember properly everything is intended to be entered as pretty flexible text. One other note on this topic. There is a related standard, X.500, which addresses networked directory services. This is far beyond what the current RFC based mail systems can do as this provides a way to complete addresses, find addresses, and so on. The identification scheme described by the standard provides a way of generating a unique address for every item of data in the world, including people. Marc S. Gibian email: marc@apollo.com
jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) (08/24/88)
In article <26196@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: >>What does an X.400 address look like? ... >For example, one of the formats is simply the recipient's personal >name (structured into Surname, Given name, Initials, Generational >qualifier), but you'd probably need to augment it with other I hope that structuring is just one of many possibilities for the structure of a personal name field---otherwise it's not exactly standard!
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (08/24/88)
In article <3714@polya.Stanford.EDU> andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: >I sure hope this doesn't mean that x.400 doesn't define a canonical >textual representation of addresses. I rarely use a mail system to >give addresses to other people and quite often, I don't even use a >computer. If x.400 addresses don't have a standard text format, >they're useless for business cards, phone conversations, magazine >articles, etc., and they require special handling for databases. Sorry, but they don't. There is nothing in X.400 regarding the user interface to the mail system, nor does it ever even mention business cards. It is a standard for communication between computers. If magazine/journal editors want to come up with a standard printed form for X.400 addresses, that is fine, but it should not be part of the computer protocol standards. By the way, I don't recall any place in RFC-822 where it specifies a representation of addresses for use on business cards, either. The user@host form is only recommended for use internally by the mail protocols; if an implementation chooses (as most have) to use it in the user interface, that's the implementor's choice, neither encouraged nor discouraged by the standard. For many years I have been using a system (a close relative to Unix) where one types "send_mail user -at domain", because we felt that it would be more appropriate to use the standard control argument syntax and also because @ is the default line-kill character. The read_mail command on this same system displays addresses in the header as "user at domain" because we feel it is a better human interface, and messages are even stored this way in mailboxes. The user@domain syntax is ONLY employed when the message is sent out over the network. Many other mail system implementors have taken the easy route of using RFC-822 as their user interface, taking advantage of the fact that RFC-822 was designed to be human-readable. I imagine that a typical mail-sending interface on an X.400 system would use a form-filling interface. It would let you fill in all the fields you know, and if you've specified a complete enough set it will then proceed to send the message. Remember, one of the goals of X.400 addressing is that you NOT be required to use computer-specific addresses, but just give an ordinary postal address (many of the X.400 designers work for European PTTs). And even if you do have to use machine addresses (for instance, until Directory Services is implemented), there is no real need for a canonical representation. A business card could say "User BARMAR on ARPANET host THINK.COM"; in fact, I expect that the old BARMAR@THINK.COM syntax might continue to be used. Someone actually sending mail would then translate that to the appropriate syntax for their system. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (08/26/88)
In article <727@etive.ed.ac.uk> jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) writes: >In article <26196@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: >>For example, one of the formats is simply the recipient's personal >>name (structured into Surname, Given name, Initials, Generational >>qualifier), but you'd probably need to augment it with other >I hope that structuring is just one of many possibilities for the >structure of a personal name field---otherwise it's not exactly >standard! I think that's the only format specified by the standard. What else do you need? I realize that there's no title (Doctor, Ph.D., etc), but that isn't really needed to identify a person, it's an honorific designation. Actually, I made one transcription mistake. The standard says "Given name(s)", so if full middle names are necessary to identify someone they may be given. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) (08/29/88)
In article <3e0ccda9.166d8@apollo.COM>, marc@apollo.COM (Marc Gibian) writes: > >>In article <304@pvab.UUCP> robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) writes: > >>>What does an X.400 address look like? > The addresses to be used in delivering an X.400 letter are specified > as X.400 Originator/Recipient names, commonly refered to as O/R names. > The available variants (according to my red book, granted a bit out > of date) are: Ah, thank you for that answer to my question. Now I know...
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (08/29/88)
barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) wrote: >>>For example, one of the formats is simply the recipient's personal >>>name (structured into Surname, Given name, Initials, Generational >>>qualifier)... >>I hope that structuring is just one of many possibilities for the >>structure of a personal name field---otherwise it's not exactly >>standard! >I think that's the only format specified by the standard. What else >do you need? I realize that there's no title (Doctor, Ph.D., etc), >but that isn't really needed to identify a person, it's an honorific >designation. You need more for Arabic names (I don't speak Arabic, I got this from an article in the mid-70's about Arabic DP requirements). There is no such thing as a surname in traditional Arab societies; a name is structured as <personal name> <father's name> <father's father's name> ... and so on, the length of the quoted ancestry getting longer as the occasion gets more formal. So the only way the X.400 structure could be made to fit is by putting "Adam" in everybody's surname field and a list of 150-odd names as the "generational qualifier". (Arabs can often recite a genealogy going back that far). I believe this structure is still in widespread use. Icelanders might not be happy to see their patronymics shoehorned into this model either, but I guess they're used to it. Any other unusual naming systems out there? -- ARPA: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk USENET: jack@cs.glasgow.uucp JANET:jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs useBANGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack Mail: Jack Campin, Computing Science Dept., Glasgow Univ., 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND work 041 339 8855 x 6045; home 041 556 1878
jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) (08/29/88)
In article <26548@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: >In article <727@etive.ed.ac.uk> jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) writes: >>In article <26196@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: >>>... one of the formats is simply the recipient's personal name (structured >>>into Surname, Given name, Initials, Generational qualifier) >>I hope that structuring is just one of many possibilities for the >>structure of a personal name field---otherwise it's not exactly >>standard! >I think that's the only format specified by the standard. What else >do you need? ... >Actually, I made one transcription mistake. The standard says "Given >name(s)", so if full middle names are necessary to identify someone >they may be given. Well, without thinking about it, I can come up with the following problems: how would you deal with The Duke of Bedford (English peers have surnames, but don't use them) Fernando Colon de Lopez y Garcia (will you put all of the last names in the surname field? Omit the "de Lopez y Garcia"? or what?) Vigdis Finbogadottir (Icelanders don't have surnames, only patronymics, and they're listed under their name, not under their patronymic) I'm sure if I knew about more countries, I could come up with more naming schemes! But even if the `standard' is intended solely for American use (the structuring you give seems to be only for American Anglo-Saxon(ized) names), not everybody in the U.S. has an American name!
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/31/88)
> I hope that structuring is just one of many possibilities for the > structure of a personal name field---otherwise it's not exactly standard! Not to mention that sometimes you're not even mailing to a person. What about mail to pseudo-users like postmaster or root? Or mailing to a file or a program or a mailing list? -- Roy Smith, System Administrator Public Health Research Institute {allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net "The connector is the network"
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (08/31/88)
In article <738@etive.ed.ac.uk> jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) writes: >Well, without thinking about it, I can come up with the following >problems: how would you deal with > >The Duke of Bedford > (English peers have surnames, but don't use them) >Fernando Colon de Lopez y Garcia > (will you put all of the last names in the surname field? Omit the >"de Lopez y Garcia"? or what?) >Vigdis Finbogadottir > (Icelanders don't have surnames, only patronymics, and they're listed >under their name, not under their patronymic) Well, what do standardized, printed forms look like in those countries? In America, most forms that one fills out have only three spaces for the parts of a name: first name, middle initial, surname. This must be a real bitch for database designers. What do they do? If I want to look up the Duke of Bedford in a British phone book, what do I look for? And in response to the other posting, where someone said that Arabic names include all the ancestors, what does that phone book look like? Does everyone get a page to himself? The point is that organizing names is nothing new. Phone books have been around for decades, and organizations have been filing personal data in computers for years. Any existing solutions for breaking down names are applicable. >I'm sure if I knew about more countries, I could come up with more >naming schemes! But even if the `standard' is intended solely for >American use (the structuring you give seems to be only for American >Anglo-Saxon(ized) names), not everybody in the U.S. has an American name! I seriously doubt that there is anything in the X.400 standard that is intended to be biased in favor of Americans. CCITT is an international standards body, made up mostly of representatives of EUROPEAN PTT's. Perhaps this area of the standard will be revisited at some point. No one can actually use these forms of O/R Names until Directory Services is designed and implemented, and that won't be for a while. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (08/31/88)
In article <3454@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: >> I hope that structuring is just one of many possibilities for the >> structure of a personal name field---otherwise it's not exactly standard! > > Not to mention that sometimes you're not even mailing to a person. >What about mail to pseudo-users like postmaster or root? Or mailing to a >file or a program or a mailing list? Did you read my original posting? Or how about someone else's posting, in which he copied the appropriate text straight out of the standard? Personal names are just one of several types of O/R Names. When you aren't mailing to a person, you don't use the personal name format. This is analogous to many situations in the real world. When sending bills to a company, you might address it to "Accounts Payable Department" rather than to a person. And junk mail is generally addressed to "Occupant". Neither of these are personal names, because the sender doesn't know (or doesn't care) the name of the intended recipient. The same is true of electronic mail, and X.400 has provisions for that. One of the other formats of O/R Names is: 3. Organizational Attributes Examples: Organization name Organizational unit Position or role So, using this format you could send mail to me by specifying Organization name: Thinking Machines Corporation Organizational unit: Systems Group Position: Systems Manager -- Lisp Machines Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) (08/31/88)
In article <738@etive.ed.ac.uk>, jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) wrote: > But even if the `standard' is intended solely for American use (the > structuring you give seems to be only for American Anglo-Saxon(ized) > names), not everybody in the U.S. has an American name! It's not clear that X.400 is intended for American use at all: we've already got RFC-822. X.400's primary problem is connectivity: if you run X.400, who can you talk to in a world of RFC-822? How would X.400 deal with people who appear otherwise identical by name and geography? When I lived at home, there was no end to the confusion causes by having two people with identical names, at identical names, both involved in the computer industry. Such confusion can be useful, such as when I got my first credit card, but I gather X.400 would like to eliminate it. What kind of specification of address is going to solve the problem? Neither my dad nor I use the "James Van Artsdalen II" nonsense. This has led to a number of amusing situations, because people tend to assume that if they've got *a* James Van Artsdalen, they've got *the* James Van Artsdalen. PS. I know several people with either no middle name or an ambiguous middle name (ambiguous because not all official documents agree). -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746
bct@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Brian Tompsett) (09/01/88)
In article <27078@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: >In article <738@etive.ed.ac.uk> jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) writes: >>Well, without thinking about it, I can come up with the following >>problems: how would you deal with >> >>The Duke of Bedford >> (English peers have surnames, but don't use them) > >If I want to look up the Duke of Bedford in a British phone book, what >do I look for? For the curious the following came from the University address list. This illustrates how Dukes and Peers and other such personages are listed in directories: Edinburgh, H.R.H. The Prince Phillip, Duke of, K.G., K.T., P.C., O.M., G.B.E., LL.D., F.R.S.: Chancellor In other words: H.R.H. The Prince Phillip Duke of Edinburgh K.G. etc etc ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ --- First Name --------- name? Last Name -Titles etc- Note that H.D. Edinburgh is not a valid abbreviation, and nor is "H.R.H The Prince Phillip D. Edinburgh" but Duke of Edinburgh is valid. Also this person DOES have an Electronic mail address. It was the subject of a case of hacking that was prosecuted recently. I have no idea what his X.400 address is! Brian. > Brian Tompsett. Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, > JCMB, The King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, EDINBURGH, EH9 3JZ, Scotland, U.K. > Telephone: +44 31 667 1081 x2711. > JANET: bct@uk.ac.ed.ecsvax ARPA: bct%ed.ecsvax@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
jps@wucs1.wustl.edu (James Sterbenz) (09/10/88)
In article <27078@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: >In article <738@etive.ed.ac.uk> jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) writes: >>Well, without thinking about it, I can come up with the following >>problems: how would you deal with [various "nonstandard" name forms] Even though I usually use just my first and last name, on official documents I use my full name: James Philip Guenther Sterbenz. When I got married, both my wife and I assumed her maiden name as a SECOND middle name (we decided not to hyphenate, but wanted to keep her name as well). It's great fun getting four names on driver's licences, insurance policies, etc. Most systems are not designed to handle more than three standard names. Amazingly enough, getting it right on the Social Security card was easy, and was good amunition when organizations didn't like the marriage licence as proof of name. To get a driver's licence I had to go all the way to the state's attorney general's office. >>I'm sure if I knew about more countries, I could come up with more >>naming schemes! But even if the `standard' is intended solely for >>American use (the structuring you give seems to be only for American >>Anglo-Saxon(ized) names), not everybody in the U.S. has an American name! Even in the U.S. "native americans" (yes, "indians" are the REAL native americans) have non-standard forms.