[ih] .UK vs .GB

[John Day]

O, I would definitely agree. As I said, X.500 bit off quite a bit more than they should have or what was needed, but DNS bit off too little and just automated the host file.



> On Apr 15, 2018, at 12:20, John Klensin <jklensin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I certainly didn't mean to claim that X.500 would have been a good
> substitute for the DNS. Independent of its considerable range of
> technical and design issues, in the early 1980s it had already entered
> the "ready a couple of years from now" state that continued for more
> than a decade so it was really not a plausible option.  However, those
> considerations did not prevent its being recommended (and even
> aggressively pushed) in various quarters.
> 
>   john
> 
> 
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 14 Apr 2018, at 21:36, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think I did once see a business card with an X.400 address (but
>>> certainly not from Denise or Ruediger, who had more sense.)
>> 
>> In Sweden X.400 was used by a few hardcore institutions.  It required Y2K problems to have Tele2/Swipnet turn off their admd and gateway to/from smtp.
>> 
>>   Patrik
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
> 
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.