Alf.Hansen@pilot.cs.wisc.EDU (Alf Hansen) (04/10/91)
As far as I know there are only TWO address for the mhsnews list:
one in the U.S. (should be used for contributions from the U.S.)
one in Norway (should be used for contributions from Europe)
Contributions from outside Europe should pick one of the two.
Therefore I don't understand why local redistribution addresses
makes it difficult for peopole like Peter to reply.
Best regards,
Alf H.
===================================
Message -- (encoded size: 3774 bytes)
Delivery id: hansen671296891.31hermit.cs.uw
Delivery time: Apr 10, 1991 10:21:31
Ip-msg-id: (q)91-04-10-15:38:08.33(042)GRZ027(q)(a)DBNGMD21.BITNET
From: "Peter Sylvester +33 1 69823973" <c=us/prmd=xnren/o=bitnet/ou=DBNGMD21/pn=GRZ027>
To: c=us/prmd=xnren/o=edu/ou=wisc/ou=cs/pn=alf.hansen
Subject: (Copy) Failed mail
Can you help me forwarding this to the appropriate list. The
message that I used for reply obviously did not have a correct
list name in it. I am beginning to find it extremely irritating
about the amount of slightly different lists.
Thanks for your assistance.
---------------------------- Text of forwarded message -----------------------
Received: (from UKACRL.BITNET for <mmdf@ess.cs.ucl.ac.uk> via BSMTP)
Received: (from MAILER@UKACRL for MAILER@DBNGMD21 via NJE)
(UCLA/Mail400 V1.421 M-ess-3610-74); Wed, 10 Apr 91 15:25:22
Received: from RL.IB by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0639; Wed,
10 Apr 91 14:25:38 BST
Received: from RL.IB by UK.AC.RL.IB (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4120; Wed, 10
Apr 91 14:25:37 BST
Via: UK.AC.UCL.CS.ESS; 10 APR 91 14:25:34 BST
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 14:23:08 BST
From: Memo Service (mmdf.5.86) <mmdf@ESS.CS.UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Failed mail
To: GRZ027
Your message was not delivered to the following addresses:
(USER) Unknown user name in "mhsnews@UK.AC.UCL.CS.ESS"
Your message begins as follows:
Received:
from UKACRL by UK.AC.RL.IB (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4055; Wed, 10
Apr 91 14:23:32 BST
Received: from DBNGMD21.BITNET by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id
0593; Wed, 10 Apr 91 14:23:32 BS
Message-ID: <"91-04-10-15:22:49.80*GRZ027"@DBNGMD21.BITNET>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 15:22
To: mhsnews@UK.AC.UCL.CS.ESS
In-Reply-To: <9104100343.aa19189@ICS.UCI.EDU>
From: Peter Sylvester +33 1 69823973 <GRZ027@EARN.DBNGMD21>
Subject: Re: Order of fields in business card printed O/R-address format
It seems to me that the discussion of order is influenced by some
limitations of some X.400 systems only. When I look to the
real world then it is almost clear that the name spaces that
are used for the different levels or organisational units are
unique. Example you can write to
Europaisches Zentralamt fuer zwischenmenschliche Beziehungen
Institut fuer Telekommunikation
Abteilung CCITT-X400
Arbeitsgruppe OR-Namen
and it is absolutely sure that you can write at least the last
three organisational units in any order.
If implementations would have followed the intention of providing
at least some part of directory for "local" routing, then one
would obviously try and allow that any order of orgnames would
be acceptable for the same thing, and probably some phonetic
match would also occur.
Therefore I would recommend that one should not discuss the
order of org units on business cards but rather try and
recommend that systems should tolerate any order. I do not see
that one should require that orgunits must be in the correct
order except for the reason that some systems currently have
problems. There is of course one aspect namely gatewaying to
internet. It can happen that some lower level domain name
components have to be mapped to a sequence of Orgunits or better
a sequence of orgunits to some lower level domain names. But
since in these cases the institutions are aware of both
environments (since they have agreed that the two forms of mail
addresses can be used to reach the same institution, don't they
it should be possible to have aliasas in the domain name space as
well as in the local X400 user directory.
Peter Sylvester -- EARN Office