Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question

Erik Skovgaard <eskovgaa@cue.bc.ca> Sat, 29 May 1993 01:46 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17094; 28 May 93 21:46 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17090; 28 May 93 21:46 EDT
Received: from haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27741; 28 May 93 21:46 EDT
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk with local SMTP id <g.04493-0@haig.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Sat, 29 May 1993 01:40:45 +0100
Received: from cue.bc.ca by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.17871-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Sat, 29 May 1993 01:40:34 +0100
Received: by cue.bc.ca (5.65/Ultrix2.4-C) id AA00691; Thu, 27 May 93 17:40:07 -0700
Date: Thu, 27 May 93 17:40:07 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Erik Skovgaard <eskovgaa@cue.bc.ca>
Message-Id: <9305280040.AA00691@cue.bc.ca>
To: S.Kille@isode.com
Subject: Re: Yet another X.400 vs SMTP question
Cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk

Steve,

I agree with you on many points.  I guess, my sarchasm got carried away.
Couldn't help making fun out of another futile debate.

But, FYI - the APS protocol "stack" is actually providing a connection-
oriented service, although it may seem funny that we are using a
connectionless link protocol.

Anyway, it was not my point to start another CLNP vs CONS debate.  As it
turns out, both work!

Thanks for the info on the new "commercial" version of PP.  It is good
to hear that you are making progress.  In all fairness, it probably
should have a new name so it is not confused with the free version. 

Cheers,               ....Erik.