correct • elegant • free

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ X.400 Attachments & MIME

X.400 MHS Vs SMTP ▻


In article <>,
 <> wrote:
>As I understand it there is no "Standard" for file attachments across
>SMTP whereas X.400 has.

You've not heard of MIME?  In brief, MIME extends RFC 822 to allow
multiple character sets, non-text body parts, multipart messages (i.e.
attachments) and various other features.  See the comp.mail.mime FAQ;
the MIME standard, RFC 1521; and also RFCs 1494 - 1496 which define how
MIME messages should be gatewayed to and from X.400.

>                                                             Security
>is a function of the X.400 store and forward environment and

Sorry?  Can you explain how having all my messages cross many hops and
sit on many different machines provides better security (in any sense)
than SMTP's direct delivery from sender to receiver?

If you want real (i.e. end to end cryptographic) security, you can use
PGP with SMTP *now*.

>We can not afford to follow the masses to the edge of a cliff until we
>all topple over.

Fine.  If that's your attitude why don't you simply ignore the requests
of your users?

And what, exactly, is this "cliff" we're going to topple over?  Death of
the net predicted..?

>                 While Internet mail is "Popular" this is taken care
>of with an  X.400\SMTP gateway already.

But don't forget Alvestrand's equality: gateways == pain.

>                                        We can still send/receive
>internet text messages which is all SMTP does anyway.

See comments about MIME above.


Tim Goodwin        | "Once policy-based routing is solved, some new problem
Public IP Exchange | with routing will arise." -- Marshall T Rose

Original headers:

From: (Tim Goodwin)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: X.400 MHS Vs SMTP
Date: 10 Jul 1995 13:31:56 +0100
Organization: PIPEX, 216 Science Park, Cambridge, England
Message-ID: <3tr6js$>
References: <>

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ X.400 Attachments & MIME

X.400 MHS Vs SMTP ▻