[comp.protocols.iso.x400.gateway] RFC-822 traces in X.400

mac@dit.upm.es (Manuel Alvarez-Campana Fernandez-Corredor) (10/18/90)

I have some trouble understanding the way the RFC-822 traces (the
Received: headers) are mapped into X.400 as described in RFC-987.
I think that there is much loss of information with that mapping.

Isn't it better if this information is just passed in the first body
part (that containing "RFC-822-Headers:" )?

On the other hand, I've never seen several of the extended headers
defined in RFC-987 in any RFC-822 message that has crossed a
X.400 <-> RFC-822 gateway. For example, "X400-Trace:",
"Autoforwarded-From:", etc. Is there any reason for this?

I'd appreciate any comment.

Manuel


--
.-----------------------------.--------------------------------.
|   Manuel Alvarez-Campana    | EUnet:                         |
| Dept. Ingenieria Telematica |   mac@dit.upm.es               |
|      ETSIT - UPM            | X.400:                         |
|  Ciudad Universitaria s/n   |   C=es;ADMD= ;PRMD=iris;O=upm; |
|      28040 - MADRID         |   OU=dit;OU=cactus;SUR=mac;    |
`--------------------------------------------------------------'

poole@chx400.switch.ch (Simon Poole) (10/21/90)

In article <MAC.90Oct17184743@greco.dit.upm.es> mac@dit.upm.es (Manuel Alvarez-Campana Fernandez-Corredor) writes:
........
>
>On the other hand, I've never seen several of the extended headers
>defined in RFC-987 in any RFC-822 message that has crossed a
>X.400 <-> RFC-822 gateway. For example, "X400-Trace:",
>"Autoforwarded-From:", etc. Is there any reason for this?
>

Say "EAN" very loudly.

The problem is that at the present time there are actually very few
real RFC987 gateways. There are a lot of gateways (EAN) that perform
some aspects of the RFC987 address mapping, but not more (your problem
is actually easy to fix, I hacked DFN-EAN to do this correctly last
week).

The situation will improve somewhat if more people use PP (which has
it's own set of problems, but at least they tend to be more on the
RFC-822 side) or other real RFC987 gateways.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
						Simon Poole
 poole@verw.switch.ch / poole@chx400.switch.ch / mcsun!chx400!poole
------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.Kille@cs.ucl.ac.UK (Steve Kille) (10/24/90)

As has been noted, most implemenations which claim to be 987 or 1148 are
rather incomplete.   Many drop trace.

As X.400 supplies a trace element, it seems preferable to map trace onto
this, rather than onto the extended body part.


Steve