argv@turnpike.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan Heller) (10/19/90)
In article <16906@thorin.cs.unc.edu> winslett@widor.cs.unc.edu (Michael Winslett) writes: > Does anyone know where I can get a description of the X.400 standard > for electronic mail? I looked and looked and found nothing. So, I finally called OMNICOM, INC (703-281-1135) and ordered it. I got the "1988 Blue book" volume VIII.7. It's $93. This is a very technically oriented book with extremely dry language.. Keep a glass of water next to you at all times. I have not read the whole thing yet (is that possible?), but from what I have read, I find many inconsistencies and unresolved issues. There are spider webs of terms referenced in glossaries, and then back into the text and then back again to the glossary forming a hop-count error... whoops! Can't do that! X.400 doesn't specify what to do in case of mail forwarding loops! The fun doesn't stop there... (here's the flame). It even states in the text that X.400 is not a standard. Rather, it is a "recommendation for consideration." Admittedly, it's hard to determine if some of the things they recommend is actually faulty because it's so hard to follow the logic and reasoning in the text that you are left thinking: hmmm... is that wrong or did I just miss a section somewhere? You don't know what's real and what's not... Please, X.400 is *NOT A STANDARD* just as Motif is not a standard nor is OPEN LOOK despite what the marketing people try to tell you. X.400 has some good ideas and they address some badly needed issues that are not adequately dealt with given our current system (SMTP). But, it is far from a standard... however, it will be a standard if no one comes up with something better.. flame off... I would really like someone to anti-flame this message. I feel I deserve it. I am so down on X.400 because everyone thinks they need to support it because they are misinformed that it has been standardized. If people have definite arguments in favor of X.400, please follow up and let's discuss them! -- dan ---------------------------------------------------- O'Reilly && Associates argv@sun.com / argv@ora.com Opinions expressed reflect those of the author only.
prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson) (10/19/90)
In a recent article argv@turnpike.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan Heller) writes: >Please, X.400 is *NOT A STANDARD* just as Motif is not a standard >nor is OPEN LOOK despite what the marketing people try to tell >you. X.400 has some good ideas and they address some badly needed >issues that are not adequately dealt with given our current system >(SMTP). But, it is far from a standard... however, it will be a >standard if no one comes up with something better.. But... I believe that ISO has a standard, or draft stabdard, in the OSI suite with the name "MOTIS" (Message Oriented... something). As far as I know, MOTIS and X.400(88) is more or less the same thing. -- Robert Claeson |Reasonable mailers: rclaeson@erbe.se ERBE DATA AB | Dumb mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@sunet.se | Perverse mailers: rclaeson%erbe.se@encore.com These opinions reflect my personal views and not those of my employer.
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (10/19/90)
In article <143921@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> argv@turnpike.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan Heller) writes:
If people have definite arguments in favor of X.400, please follow
up and let's discuss them!
If you really want comments from X.400 partisans, you might want to
take this discussion to where the knowledgeable people hang out:
comp.protocols.iso.x400
comp.protocols.iso.x400.gatewayphilip@beeblebrox.dle.dg.com (Philip Gladstone) (10/21/90)
In article <143921@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> argv@turnpike.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan Heller) writes:
It even states in the text that X.400 is not a standard. Rather,
it is a "recommendation for consideration." Admittedly, it's hard
to determine if some of the things they recommend is actually
faulty because it's so hard to follow the logic and reasoning in
the text that you are left thinking: hmmm... is that wrong or did
I just miss a section somewhere? You don't know what's real and
what's not...
Please, X.400 is *NOT A STANDARD* just as Motif is not a standard
nor is OPEN LOOK despite what the marketing people try to tell
you. X.400 has some good ideas and they address some badly needed
issues that are not adequately dealt with given our current system
(SMTP). But, it is far from a standard... however, it will be a
standard if no one comes up with something better..
X.400 is a CCITT Recommendation. The word "Recommendation" is
CCITT-ese for "Standard". You could have ordered ISO 10021 and got
almost the same document, but with ISO Standard substituted for CCITT
Recommendation throughout.
It is apparent that the X.400 Blue Book (the CCITT Recommendation) has
many typos in it. This is due to the fact that the CCITT rekeyed all
the data from the actual working drafts (or so I am led to beleive).
The X.400 spec was also produced under very tight time pressure. It
*HAD* to be ready in time for the big CCITT plenary at the end of
1988. If not, then it would not become a recommendation. It also had to
be voted in unanimously! Both these facts cause a certain vagueness in
the document especially when dealing with regulatory issues and things
like international PRMDs. Interestingly, these are the areas that tend
to be different between ISO 10021 and X.400.
You ought to be aware that there is a document entitled
"MHS Implementor's Guide" which is now at version 3 (13 July 1990).
This guide is not part of the X.400 Recommendations but will be used
in its ongoing maintenance. It currently addresses 134 defect reports.
Some of the changes are due to typos (e.g. In LastTraceInformation,
change "ReporType" to "ReportType"), and some are clarifications.
I wonder if this guide to be made available to the general net? The
preface does say "Wide distribution of this document is expected and
encouraged."
--
Philip Gladstone philip@dle.dg.com
Development Lab Europe C=gb/AD=gold 400/PR=dgc/O=dle
Data General, Cambridge /SN=gladstone/GN=philip
England. +44 223-67600