Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question

Steve Goldstein--Ph +1-202-357-9717 <> Thu, 27 May 1993 15:05 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07788; 27 May 93 11:05 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id ab07784; 27 May 93 11:05 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12608; 27 May 93 11:05 EDT
Received: from by with local SMTP id <>; Thu, 27 May 1993 13:45:49 +0100
Received: from by with Internet SMTP id <>; Thu, 27 May 1993 13:45:34 +0100
Received: by id <>; Thu, 27 May 93 08:44:49 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Erik Huizer <>
Cc: Jock Gill <>, "James (J.K.) Ko" <>,,
Subject: Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 May 93 13:04:01 BST." <>
Date: Thu, 27 May 93 08:44:43 EDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Steve Goldstein--Ph +1-202-357-9717 <>

<<...My view is that there is no way we get rid of the Internet mail protocols
anymore, nor can we get rid of X.400. What we should fight for is to keep
it limited to these two, and prevent Lotus, Novell and Microsoft of becoming
so dominant with their LAN-E-mail protocols and associated WAN tunneling
mechanisms, that we end up with even more than two Wide area E-mail
protocols.>>  --Erik Huizer

Governments have proven ineffective at "getting rid" of any application/
protocol stack that users demand.  The stick just doesn't work.  Forget
fighting a losing battle!  Offer better alternatives.  And, in the meantime,
do things that encourage widespread seamless connectivity.  

Similarly, if products from Lotus, Novell and Microsoft can be made  to
interwork, and if they offer their users the functionality that the users
want and are willing to pay for, then how _and why_ in the world should
governments (us or EC) even _think_ about doing anything to "prevent"
their dominance?  Empower users; don't try to dam up the market and then shore
up the leaky dams with our limited number of fingers (which, in any event,
should be used for more productive ventures).  

--Steve G.