tobold.org

correct • elegant • free

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ X.400 MHS Vs SMTP

X.400 vs SMTP ▻

X.400 MHS Vs SMTP

In article <DBosK9.2xB@pacit.tas.gov.au>,
 <rpreece@cybil.ltn.dirvet.gov.au> wrote:
>>You've not heard of MIME?
>
>I meant a standard that every site uses.

Oh, right.  In that case, we can disregard all your comments about X.400
security services (and anything else not in the '84 specification).

>>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 I sent internet E-Mail to you from Oz wouldn't my message do the
>same thing?

Only if either i) you're not on the IP-connected Internet, or ii) your
mail system is misconfigured.

>>If you want real (i.e. end to end cryptographic) security, you can use
>>PGP with SMTP *now*.
>
>One patch up after another.

That's one way of looking at it.

Personally, I see MIME (and to a lesser extent PGP and PEM) as a
brilliant example of how greatly to enhance the functionality of a
system without losing interoperability with the (enormous) installed
base.

The X.400 approach seems to be to ignore the installed base every
four years.  This leads to much more elegant standards, but much less
interoperability.

Tim.
--
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@pipex.net (Tim Goodwin)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: X.400 MHS Vs SMTP
Date: 14 Jul 1995 17:46:27 +0100
Organization: PIPEX, 216 Science Park, Cambridge, England
Message-ID: <3u6713$lh@pipe.pipex.net>
References: <DB6B86.BCu@pacit.tas.gov.au> <DBH405.MvC@pacit.tas.gov.au>
  <3tr6js$jtg@pipe.pipex.net> <DBosK9.2xB@pacit.tas.gov.au>

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ X.400 MHS Vs SMTP

X.400 vs SMTP ▻