Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) (02/25/91)
Can someone please explain the difference between X.400 and Internet-style names of the form: USER@SITE.DOMAIN? I had thought that X.400 names were of the form /THIS=,/THAT=,/ANDWHATEVER=. Recently, two things made me question this. First, someone told me that the USER@SITE.DOMAIN was an X.400 standard. Second, I noticed that PSI offers an X.500 service as part of their TCP/IP public data network PSInet. Their advertising literature seems to imply that the X.500 database holds addresses of the USER@SITE.DOMAIN type. I understand that "bang" style names are unique to UNIX (a derivative of UUCP), but are the USER@SITE.DOMAIN style names X.400 or UNIX standards, and what is the relationship to the longer addressing form /THIS=,/ETC=? Thanks, Will Estes (apple!cup.portal.com!Will)
broehl@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Bernie Roehl) (02/26/91)
In article <39557@cup.portal.com> Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes: >Can someone please explain the difference between X.400 and Internet-style >names of the form: USER@SITE.DOMAIN? I had thought that X.400 names >were of the form /THIS=,/THAT=,/ANDWHATEVER=. They are. The standard syntax "user@site.domain" is used throughout the Internet (and beyond!). The "/this=,that=" is unique to X.400, which is part of the OSI spec. >First, someone told me that the USER@SITE.DOMAIN was an X.400 standard. They were mistaken. I much prefer the user@site.domain, since it's shorter and easier to remember than "/admd=domain,/prmd=site,/name=user". >Second, I noticed that PSI offers an X.500 service as part of their >TCP/IP public data network PSInet. Their >advertising literature seems to imply that the X.500 database holds >addresses of the USER@SITE.DOMAIN type. It's my understanding that X.500 databases can hold addresses in just about any format, including physical street addresses. >are the USER@SITE.DOMAIN style names X.400 or UNIX standards Neither -- they're standard throughout the entire Internet, which includes many Unix systems, VMS systems, VM systems, DOS systems, Macintoshes, etc etc. -- Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept Mail: broehl@sunee.waterloo.edu OR broehl@sunee.UWaterloo.ca BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!sunee!broehl Voice: (519) 885-1211 x 2607 [work]
hta@isolde.Berkeley.EDU (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) (02/26/91)
In article <39557@cup.portal.com>, Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes: I had thought that X.400 names |> were of the form /THIS=,/THAT=,/ANDWHATEVER=. You were right. BUT............ 1) There exists an RFC called RFC-987 (see also RFC-1148) that specifies how to map X.400 addresses to RFC format addresses and the other way round, using a big, ugly table called "the RFC-987 mapping table". See, for example, the two formats of my address below; they are the SAME mailbox. 2) The format /THIS=... is ONE of the possible ways to write an X.400 address (you might think that this is nitpicking until you encounter another one :-) 3) X.500 can store anything. We use it today to store (among other things) X.400 mailbox names and RFC-822 mailbox names. Confused? You are not alone! Harald Tveit Alvestrand Harald.Alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=sintef;OU=elab-runit;S=alvestrand;G=harald +47 7 59 70 94
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (02/28/91)
In article <39557@cup.portal.com> Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes: >Can someone please explain the difference between X.400 and Internet-style >names of the form: USER@SITE.DOMAIN? I had thought that X.400 names >were of the form /THIS=,/THAT=,/ANDWHATEVER=. Recently, two things >made me question this. First, someone told me that the USER@SITE.DOMAIN >was an X.400 standard. Second, I noticed that PSI offers an X.500 >service as part of their TCP/IP public data network PSInet. Their >advertising literature seems to imply that the X.500 database holds >addresses of the USER@SITE.DOMAIN type. I understand that "bang" style >names are unique to UNIX (a derivative of UUCP), but are the USER@SITE.DOMAIN >style names X.400 or UNIX standards, and what is the relationship to >the longer addressing form /THIS=,/ETC=? > >Thanks, >Will Estes (apple!cup.portal.com!Will) X.{4,5}00 names for people & mailboxes have (at least) the following attributes: Country /C=../ Administrative Domain /ADMD=.../ Primary Domain /PRMD=.../ Organization /O=.../ Organizational Unit /OU=.../ Surname /S=.../ Given Name /G=.../ Common Name /CN=.../ These are commonly strung together much like what you listed above. But there isn't a standard for how to represent them on paper. There also isn't (for X.400 anyway) a given order to these things, though there is a "natural" order/hierarchy for all but the "OU" attributes. RFC-987 specifies a translation between that form & RFC-822 domain addresses which looks like local-part@OU$bleep.OU$bloop.O$blarp.PRMD$grunch.ADMD$plink.C$frobozz The equivalent slashy form is /C=frobozz/ADMD=plink/PRMD=grunch/O=blarp/OU=bloop/OU=bleep/CN=local-part/ So there is something of a mapping. I am not familiar with the service that PSI is offering, asking them directly might be useful. "bang" names are derived from UUCP, but UUCP is no longer unique to Unix. Nor has it been for a couple of years now.. I have UUCP on my Amiga at home & it works fine (gets >1000 characters per second through a local trailblazer connection! 7.xx MHz 68000 at that ;-) Suggested reading: RFCs 987, 1138, 1148 and 1154. ISO X.4xx & X.5xx standards (available for $$$ from Omnicom in Falls Church, VA). Marshal Roses "The Open Book" (but only if you can stand long digressions into the political maneuvers which networking development has become ... (*sigh*)) David -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <- <- MS-DOS ... The ultimate computer virus.
jzl@micasa.UUCP (Jack Z. Lupic) (03/04/91)
hta@isolde.Berkeley.EDU (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) writes: > 1) There exists an RFC called RFC-987 (see also RFC-1148) that specifies how > to map X.400 addresses to RFC format addresses and the other way round, > using a big, ugly table called "the RFC-987 mapping table". > See, for example, the two formats of my address below; they are the SAME > mailbox. > 2) The format /THIS=... is ONE of the possible ways to write an X.400 address > (you might think that this is nitpicking until you encounter another one : > 3) X.500 can store anything. We use it today to store (among other things) > X.400 mailbox names and RFC-822 mailbox names. > Is there an RFC type DOC that details the specs for X.500 protocol? -Jack Lupic- jzl%micasa@doe.toronto.edu
pc@ctt.ctt.bellcore.com (03/05/91)
In article <XuF0X1w163w@micasa.UUCP> jzl@micasa.UUCP (Jack Z. Lupic) writes: > Is there an RFC type DOC that details the specs for X.500 protocol? > -Jack Lupic- ISO document 9594-1 describes X.500; however, these are not to my knowledge available online (they are copyrighted). You can obtain them from NIST - or your domestic standards agency for those outside the US. (and a few other organisations). you'll also want to be familiar with X.501, X.511, X.519 and some others; perhaps someone could suggest a book that summarises all this information? i took a class on X.500 from a certain dan bloom from OSI migrations in DC. Peter Clitherow, Bellcore, pc@bellcore.com 444 Hoes Lane, Room 1H-213, Piscataway, NJ 08854-4182 (908) 699-3322
lan_csse@netrix.nac.dec.com (CSSE LAN Test Account) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Feb25.185436.11447@watserv1.waterloo.edu> broehl@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Bernie Roehl) writes: >In article <39557@cup.portal.com> Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes: >>Can someone please explain the difference between X.400 and Internet-style >>names of the form: USER@SITE.DOMAIN? I had thought that X.400 names >>were of the form /THIS=,/THAT=,/ANDWHATEVER=. > >They are. The standard syntax "user@site.domain" is used throughout the >Internet (and beyond!). The "/this=,that=" is unique to X.400, which is >part of the OSI spec. In any case, part of the confusion is the assumption that a standard's address format must be what is presented to the user. This isn't true. It's quite legal for a single system to have, say, an X.400 mailer, an SMTP (internet) mailer, and a UUCP mailer installed. The usual result would be that the poor users have to figure out for themselves which of the mailers talks to a given machine, and use the correct syntax for that mailer. Sendmail typically comes configured to require this. But this is extremely user-hostile, and there is no real excuse for it. It is quite legal, and not hard to program, to have the user interface accept addresses in multiple formats, parse them, figure out which of the mailers can handle a job, and convert the address to that mailer's format. This is, for example, what the smail package does. Sendmail also has the capability (if you can figure out how to change sendmail.cf to do it right ;-), and some vendors even supply sendmail configured to do this. Forcing the user to figure out bizarre mail syntaxes is inexcusable in these days of mass email confusion. That's what we have computers for. If your mail interface can't do the translation, you should harass your vendor until they get it right.