<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/04/2018 05:57, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:eb86ac1f-df83-2f2a-20c3-1f04d633f4d8@gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">On 14/04/2018 16:00, Patrik Fältström wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 13 Apr 2018, at 19:44, Eric Gade <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:eric.gade@gmail.com"><eric.gade@gmail.com></a> wrote:
The X.400/X.500 systems were simply going to replace everything anyway, so the wisdom went.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
😳
But of course!!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">
Why on earth we didn't all switch to X.400 is hard to imagine. For example,
the X.400 human-readable version of a JANET address via a gateway would have
been so simple:
C = gb; ADMD = gold 400; PRMD = gw; DD.jnt-mail = user(a)domain.subdomains
(Quoted from Recommendation for a shorthand X.400 address representation, 1989.)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I know we're all laughing about this now, but back then it was no
laughing matter. JANET was running no CCITT W series recommendations
and the policy Europe-wide was to promote X.25 and of course move to
X.400<br>
So all the way until the early nineties (1992?) we were told that
the way forward was to get our house systems in order to
send/receive X.400 emails. And it was clear that the number of hoops
to jump through to get that darn X.400 working was beyond human.
When sending through gateways, one had to add/delete further
complicated fields like O and OU, as well as I & S or G, but
most importantly, replace the ; with / and on systems which did not
accept /, use \/ or perhaps encapsulate on " " or \" or \//
especially if where were spaces or, God forbit, <LF> that
might have been added to the system because the email address
wrapped around the screen. One error and your email would bounce
with something as helpful as two words: "Unrecognized ORname",
because for many gateways it appeared to be the default error. <br>
I remember signing a petition that ultimately went to JNT, asking to
keep NRS (if we were to stick to X.25), migrate to DNS (migration to
TCP-IP), but to avoid X.400 at all costs. To this day, I still
cannot believe some people were serious when they proposed the X.400
addressing scheme... and that some people took the format seriously.<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">
</pre>
</body>
</html>