Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question
Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com> Fri, 28 May 1993 20:00 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13849; 28 May 93 16:00 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13840; 28 May 93 16:00 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20915; 28 May 93 16:00 EDT
Received: from glengoyne.isode.com by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.03963-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Fri, 28 May 1993 19:18:36 +0100
Received: from glengoyne.isode.com by glengoyne.isode.com with SMTP (PP) id <09559-0@glengoyne.isode.com>; Fri, 28 May 1993 19:20:38 +0100
To: Erik Skovgaard <eskovgaa@cue.bc.ca>
cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question
Phone: +44-71-721-7582
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 27 May 1993 09:10:42 -0700. <9305271610.AA27153@cue.bc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 19:20:33 +0100
Message-ID: <9556.738613233@isode.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>
Erik, A man of your experience in messaging technology and the market really should know better than to send out a message containing such arrant nonsense. >From: eskovgaa@cue.bc.ca (Erik Skovgaard) >To: J.Crowcroft@cs.ucl.ac.uk >Subject: Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question >Date: Thu, 27 May 93 09:10:42 -0700 >Jon, > >You must be kidding! > >No wonder, you do not think much of X.400 when all you have used is PP. >Although the effort is appreciated, I must tell you that PP is not up to >par with commercial implementations. PP should now be considered a commercial implementation. The ISODE Consortium is supplying it as base technology, and there are a number of (large and small) vendors offering PP based products. If you would like further information, please contact <ic-info@isode.com> PP has a research community heritage. There are some difficulties with this, and these are the primary motivation behind the formation of the ISODE Consortium. However, these are more than compensated for by the richness of the overall functionality of PP (this is the wrong place to go into this). PP compares very favourably with all other commercial X.400 implementations, and in many areas PP is a clear market leader. >The code is bulky, There is some truth here, although it is mostly a reflection of the broad functionality offerred by PP and ISODE as a whole. >slow and has Not true. This really is not an issue with PP. Some of the busiest sites on the Internet use PP for message switching. >not passed conformance testing. Not true. Would you like me to send you a copy of the PCTR? > >I have used X.400 for many years (since 1984) and have not found any >RFC-822 mailer that is as good. This clearly gets down to aesthetics. Some users like and would die for the strangest of interfaces. As a strong promoter of X.400, I have clearly heard the message that the availability of good UAs is a big issue (i.e., I disagree with you here). >But I am even out of date. Some of >the newver X.400 Remote UA products are very good. I will definitely agree here. There are a number of very attractive products that have been introduced recently, and X.400 is looking much much better than a year back. > >So let's agree that it is a matter of taste and stop this rediculous >badmouthing of X.400 that some people on Internet seem to indulge in. There are valid points, and you should listen. >No matter how much people try, X.400 cannot be stopped since it >serves the need of many large organizations and governments - the >customers that *pay* for products and services. You are essentially saying that X.400 will happen because it is inevitable. I think that the GOSIP style of procurement has done vast damage to X.400, as it has lead to many products which are unbelieveably awful. They meet GOSIP requirements, but in no way address user needs. This sort of product has done great disservice to X.400, and led to much of the disillusion of the form expressed on these lists. I believe that X.400 will succeed - but that this is by no means inevitable. The window to restore credibility is not that wide. X.400 will succeed partly on the basis of postioning and partly on the basis of technical richness. There are no over-riding deficencies. Even the addressing does have some benefit, and addresses a lot of the practical issues of service provision by multiple providers. The success of X.400 will depend on vendors taking a user-oriented view, and building product as opposed to protocol engines. > >Any typos are to be blamed on line noise - a problem with connectionless >protocols. Good grief! You are saying that because TCP is built on a connectionless IP, that there will be corruption of characters? I guess that we should all move to X.25. I trust that this important new insight is being shared with the APS (Asynchronous Protocol Alliance). > >Cheers, ....Erik. Steve Kille ISODE Consortium
- Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Tony Genovese
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Eric D. Williams
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Alf Hansen
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Jock Gill
- re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question James (J.K.) Ko
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Tony Genovese
- re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Jock Gill
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Huizer
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Steve Goldstein--Ph +1-202-357-9717
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question James (J.K.) Ko
- re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Tony Genovese
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Eric D. Williams
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Eric D. Williams
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Jon Crowcroft
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Colin Robbins
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Marco A. Hernandez
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Huizer
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Skovgaard
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Steve Kille
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Skovgaard
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Jock Gill
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Jock Gill
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Skovgaard
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Skovgaard
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Alan.Young
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Julian Onions
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Steve Goldstein--Ph +1-202-357-9717
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Jock Gill
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question pays
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Alf Hansen
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Sylvain Langlois
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Eric D. Williams
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Steve Kille
- Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question Erik Skovgaard