Re: X.500

Michael Maciag <> Sat, 23 September 1995 17:06 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11156; 23 Sep 95 13:06 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11152; 23 Sep 95 13:06 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11836; 23 Sep 95 13:06 EDT
Received: from by with local SMTP id <>; Sat, 23 Sep 1995 17:45:36 +0100
Received: from by with Internet SMTP id <>; Sat, 23 Sep 1995 17:45:26 +0100
Received: from by (5.65/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id AA17269 for; Sat, 23 Sep 95 09:45:21 -0700
Return-Path: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Michael Maciag <>
Subject: Re: X.500
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Sep 1995 19:16:50 +0200." <v01530506ac889f1d5f5f@[]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 09:48:33 -0700

> Somehow you are right :-)
>         X.500 is not usable for yellow-pages
>         X.500 is not even that good at white pages

I am new to this forum, and just beginning to actually work with X.500 
implementations. Would you elaborate on your comments?

First, why do you say X.500 is "not that good" at whitepages (by this term I 
believe you mean direct entry lookup by distinguished name)? Are you 
commenting on current implementations, the design of the DIT, the protocol, 

Then, yellow pages (which I assume means searching for all entries which match 
on some combination of attributes).



Michael Maciag
Ergonomic Consulting