Re: Arguments wanted....

[Einar Stefferud <[e-mail]>]

This confirms my recent conclusion that the purpose of the placement
of, and requirement for, ADMD Attributes directly under the
CountryCode Attribute in an OR Address was and is to establish ADMD
monopoly control of transfers between PRMD operators.

What is the difference between PRMD => PRMD, and PRMD => PRMD => PRMD?

How long before they have to also prohibit PRMD => PRMD?

How is this going to be policed?  

When you call the protocol police, who is going to come?

Clearly this test (who will come) will show that such a thing will
never be allowed in C=US.

I project that in C=CH, they will soon discover that they have placed
their country at a competitive disadvantage.

Then they will recind it...Best...\Stef


From your message Mon, 15 Nov 1993 19:22:29 +0100 (MET):
}
}
}As some people may know, is seems as if the relaying of X.400
}messages through PRMD's (PRMD -> PRMD -> PRMD) has de facto 
}been declared illegal in Switzerland on the 1st of October. 
}This is -not- only restricted to commercial and public service 
}provision and will affect new PRMD's immediately and already 
}existing ones in two years time. 
}
}While this is not a problem directly for us (we run an ADMD),
}this seems to go so far that it cannot be in the interest of
}anybody interested in electronic communications to let this
}go uncontested.
}
}We would be interested in any material/arguments you have on the
}usage and allocation of PRMDs in other countries and the current 
}status in the X.400(92) standard.
}
}Thanks for any help
}
}Simon Poole
}
}EUnet Switzerland
}