IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question

Erik Huizer <Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl> Fri, 28 May 1993 15:38 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07680; 28 May 93 11:38 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07676; 28 May 93 11:38 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13400; 28 May 93 11:38 EDT
X400-Received: by mta haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk in /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/; Relayed; Fri, 28 May 1993 15:40:23 +0100
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 15:40:23 +0100
X400-Originator: osi-ds-request@cs.ucl.ac.uk
X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold 400/C=gb/; haig.cs.uc.089:28.04.93.14.40.23]
Priority: Non-Urgent
DL-Expansion-History: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk ; Fri, 28 May 1993 15:40:23 +0100;
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Erik Huizer <Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl>
Message-ID: <9305281433.AA05630@survival.surfnet.nl>
To: Alf Hansen <Alf.Hansen@delab.sintef.no>
Cc: jgill@nsf.gov, osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
In-Reply-To: <"4099*/G=Alf/S=Hansen/OU=delab/O=sintef/PRMD=uninett/ADMD= /C=no/"@MHS>
Subject: Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question
Organisation: SURFnet bv
Address: Cluetinckborch, P.O. Box 19035, 3501 DA Utrecht, NL
Phone: +31 30 310290
Telefax: +31 30 340903

Alf,

> X.400 has more service elements than SMTP. X.400 can use several underlaying
> network protocols (RFC 1006 on top of TCP/IP, TP 0 on top of X.25, etc...)
> and is therefore "more open" than SMTP which as far as I know runs on top of 
> TCP/IP only.

Apart from the fact that I disagree with your notion that the lack of good
interfaces and management capabillities has nothing to do with the standard
itself, the statement above is false. We currently run XSMTP (over X.25) and
BSMTP (NJE) and DSMTP (DECnet). We also run SMTP/TUBA/CLNS = CSMTP??

Erik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email