Re: Arguments wanted....

[Dave Morton <[e-mail]>]

>> I would strongly suggest you work on the principle of precedence,
>> i.e. we've been doing this for years already - talk to your favourite
>> EUnet lawyer.
>
>As I said it doesn't affect us directly (since any PRMD to PRMD relaying 
>goes via our ADMD anyway),  however it would seem to restrict anybody
>running a registered PRMD extremely. An excerpt from a letter I sent 
>to a question yesterday evening:

Sorry - I should have said any affected PRMDs should probably talk to their
lawyers.

>> No, thats not the point. The new situation is that all PRMD's
>> have to be registered by the federal communications office and
>> are no longer allocated by the various ADMDs. This is actually
>> a good thing and should have always been the case (up to now
>> only ADMDs had to be registered).
>> 
>> However to actually obtain a PRMD you have to commit (via a
>> signed document) that you will -not- use the PRMD to relay
>> traffic between other MD's (in two years time this will 
>> aply to -all- PRMDs).

This sounds very restrictive, I cannot imagine this surviving a challenge
in court, but then CH is, well, different perhaps.....

>> Example: assume I have a company that is cooperating with two
>>          other companies and we are exchanging X.400 based mail.
>>          Assume further that one (A) has a leased line connection
>> 	 to our PRMD, the other (B) has an X.25 connection and our
>> 	 MTA is using an allocated PRMD value because we have
>> 	 an ADMD connection too.
>> 
>> 	In this situation I am not allowed to relay traffic between
>> 	A and B.
>> 
>> I assume that these new rules are based on extremly strict reading of
>> the X.400(84) standard.
>> 
>> As I said in my mail, we're not directly affected by this since we
>> run our own ADMD, however I still think this goes far to far in
>> restricting usage of X.400.
>> 
>
>
>Simon

I agree, but it should get interesting in showing what a nonsense the
A/PRMD model actually has become.

Dave