Re: Arguments wanted....

[Simon Poole <[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:


> 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).
> 
> 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