oates@dg-rtp.dg.com (Tim Oates) (10/20/89)
I've recently been trying to learn what I can about X.400. Technical
information on the subject ( though not overly abundant ) is available.
For example, I have CCITT Red Book Volume 8 Fascicle 8.7 and RFC 987 which
describes the mapping between X.400 and RFC 822. However, I haven't been
able to find out what the state of its use in the real world is. If
anyone on the net can help me answer the following questions I would be
very appreciative ( please send e-mail ):
1) Which major corporations have messaging systems that can talk X.400?
( I understand that DEC's All-In-1 does. )
2) Does anyone OEM a complete implementation of the Messaging Handling
System?
3) For those of you in a position to speculate, how widespread do you see
the acceptance/implementation of X.400 being? Will it eventually
overtake SMTP as the mail handling protocol of choice on UNIX systems?
Is corporate USA clamoring for it, thinking about it, or oblivious of it?
Disclaimer: The information that I am seeking is for personal edification
only. My employer who graciously provides my connection to this
forum has nothing to do with this posting.MYNARD@WL9.Prime.COM (11/15/89)
< /* Written 4:02 am Nov 13, 1989 by oates@dg-rtp.dg.com in WL9:comp.protocols.iso */ < /* ---------- "Questions about X.400" ---------- */ < < I've recently been trying to learn what I can about X.400. Technical < information on the subject ( though not overly abundant ) is available. < For example, I have CCITT Red Book Volume 8 Fascicle 8.7 and RFC 987 which < describes the mapping between X.400 and RFC 822. However, I haven't been < able to find out what the state of its use in the real world is. If < anyone on the net can help me answer the following questions I would be < very appreciative ( please send e-mail ): < < 1) Which major corporations have messaging systems that can talk X.400? < ( I understand that DEC's All-In-1 does. ) Virtually all the major computer companies (and most of the minor ones) now have X.400 offerings - even IBM! There are a number of OSI vendors associations throughout the world, EurOSInet being the European one, to which most vendors belong. EurOSInet put take part in major computer shows such as the recent 'Open Systems' show in London, and the biggest computer show: CeBit in Hannover, Germany. At these exhibitions you can see all the vendors and their products on a single stand, all communicating with each other. X.400 mail really does work. < < 2) Does anyone OEM a complete implementation of the Messaging Handling < System? There are a number of software companies that can provide an MHS implementation. The best known are probaly Retix and OSIWare (reincarnation of Sydney). < < 3) For those of you in a position to speculate, how widespread do you see < the acceptance/implementation of X.400 being? Will it eventually < overtake SMTP as the mail handling protocol of choice on UNIX systems? < Is corporate USA clamoring for it, thinking about it, or oblivious of it? < As indicated above, implementation is already widespread. As for use, within Europe X.400 and will almost certainly take off. We do not have such an established mail network as the Internet in the US with which it must compete. 1992 and all that goes with it is making people aware of the need for open systems communications. It will probably not be just plain X.400 mail that gets the standard accepted in a big way, but the extras that are now being designed to make use of it, such as EDI and ODA. < Disclaimer: The information that I am seeking is for personal edification < only. My employer who graciously provides my connection to this < forum has nothing to do with this posting. < /* End of text from WL9:comp.protocols.iso */ < Alan Mynard, Prime Computer R&D, mynard@wl9.prime.com
smart@ditmela.oz (Robert Smart) (11/18/89)
In article <10100002@WL9.Prime.COM> MYNARD@WL9.Prime.COM writes: > > X.400 mail really does work. > There seems to be a really big hole in X.400 to my mind, and that is administration. For TCP/IP I know how to get an IP address, how to get a domain name, how to get the name server records set up so that I can be reached. For X.400 and OSI: How do I get an NSAP (lets stick to Geographical ones, the others are fluff); How do I get PRMD/ORG/OU names? Are there any standards for names in the OSI world? Will people be able to use the same names for FTAM as for X.400 or is this an application specific matter in OSI? Is there an X.400 "world" or just lots of pairs of machines talking X.400 to each other? Who should I connect to with X.400 and who will then be able to reach me? In case you think I know nothing about X.400, I might say that we have at least 4 X.400 implementations running in our small lab with three of them attached to Australia's experimental X.400 facility. It seems to me that X.400 is going nowhere for administrative reasons mentioned. I don't even know of any attempts to address these problems in Australia. Bob Smart <uunet!munnari!ditmela.oz!smart> or <smart%ditmela.oz.au@uunet.uu.net>
thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) (11/19/89)
smart@ditmela.oz (Robert Smart) writes: >In article <10100002@WL9.Prime.COM> MYNARD@WL9.Prime.COM writes: >> >> X.400 mail really does work. >> >There seems to be a really big hole in X.400 to my mind, and that is >administration. For TCP/IP I know how to get an IP address, how to get >a domain name, how to get the name server records set up so that I >can be reached. You mean you know how (on BSD Unix) to set up the /etc/hosts file? Which you have to do by hand? Or am I missing something? What you are talking about sounds like criticisms about the implementations, not the standards. If you meant, 'we need more usable, fully rounded X.400 implementations', I entirely agree with you. That will happen as more people gain experience with the existing implementations, and bump their heads against limitations. Configuration and management are tough issues, but I don't consider them to be a bigger problem for X.400 than a lot of existing protocols. (For example, I *hate* setting up the UUCP database!). Rob T -- Rob Thurlow, thurlow@convex.com "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) (11/20/89)
In article <3215@convex.UUCP> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes: > >You mean you know how (on BSD Unix) to set up the /etc/hosts file? >Which you have to do by hand? Or am I missing something? What you What he probably means is that there is a controlled way to be assigned a worldwide unique IP-subnet for your needs. Of course you only need this if you are to be connected to the Internet/Eunet/etc. There seems to be very little knowledge about the existing mail facilities available to the members of the EUUG, the European Unix Users Group. This might be a reason some people are in such a hurry to get X.400. I'd rather have my X.400 system gatewayed to the EUNET as directly as can be managed, because the EUNET at least has some coordination. In the X.400 world everything seems to depend on me wanting to pay the local PTT for an X.25 connection, and have them forwarding my mail. Per - Speaking for myself of course -- Per Andersson Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden perand@admin.kth.se, @tds.kth.se, @nada.kth.se or perhaps {backbone}!sunic!ttds!perand
marc@apollo.HP.COM (Marc Gibian) (11/21/89)
In article <3215@convex.UUCP> thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes: >smart@ditmela.oz (Robert Smart) writes: > >>In article <10100002@WL9.Prime.COM> MYNARD@WL9.Prime.COM writes: >>> >>> X.400 mail really does work. >>> >>There seems to be a really big hole in X.400 to my mind, and that is >>administration. For TCP/IP I know how to get an IP address, how to get >>a domain name, how to get the name server records set up so that I >>can be reached. > >You mean you know how (on BSD Unix) to set up the /etc/hosts file? >Which you have to do by hand? Or am I missing something? What you >are talking about sounds like criticisms about the implementations, >not the standards. If you meant, 'we need more usable, fully rounded >X.400 implementations', I entirely agree with you. That will happen >as more people gain experience with the existing implementations, and >bump their heads against limitations. Configuration and management >are tough issues, but I don't consider them to be a bigger problem for >X.400 than a lot of existing protocols. (For example, I *hate* setting >up the UUCP database!). > There are a number of ways of viewing the x.400 standard. Most x.400 products available today treat it simply as an email interchange protocol, and use it to let their existing email products connect to other x.400 products. This interpretation is the least challenging, as it simply extends connectivity while preserving the current functionality in the email products. The other approach to x.400 is to view it as defining not only a protocol for interchange of mail, but also a very rich email environment that is not supported by any non-x.400 based products. This interpretation results in enourmous increase in the functionality delivered to users by their email system, as well as supporting connectivity to other x.400 products. (I can not resist - note that HP's openmail and x.400 products together implement the latter of these while HP's x.400 product on its own implements the former. Both of these are announced products.) I believe it is a shame that most x.400 products available today are based on the former of these interpretations. Some is because it is easier to release a new version of the same old user interface... no need to spend time on engineering the human factors, no need to come to terms with the richness of function defined by x.400. Finally, x.400 is a relatively young standard, especially if judged by the number of products built supporting it. As such, the 1988 version of the standard is MUCH stronger, yet most if not all currently available products are of the 1984 (red book) version of the standard. Some of these products include a few of the 1988 features. As I user I can not wait for some good "native" x.400 1988 products to become available as the functionality in this version of the standard is really exciting! Marc S. Gibian Project Engineer, email project: Apollo Systems Division of HP Internet: marc@apollo.hp.COM NETel: Apollo: 508-256-6600 x2077 (Copyright 1989 by author. All rights reserved. Free redistribution allowed.)
rayan@cs.toronto.edu (Rayan Zachariassen) (11/23/89)
marc@apollo.HP.COM (Marc [ love them features! ] Gibian) writes: >There are a number of ways of viewing the x.400 standard. Most x.400 >products available today treat it simply as an email interchange >protocol, and use it to let their existing email products connect to >other x.400 products. ... >The other approach to x.400 is to view it as defining not only a protocol >for interchange of mail, but also a very rich email environment that is >not supported by any non-x.400 based products. One of my peeves with X.400 as used in the second way, is the incredible administrative inconvenience it presents. Everything is stored in binary, it can't be edited, diddled, patched, looked at, grep'ed, etc., none of the normal system tools will work with it. All is dandy as long as things run smoothly, but if there's ever a problem the mail/sys-admin will be up a creek. Note that this is also in a sense the easier solution for an implementor, i.e. to just make the transport protocol the storage format. rayan