correct • elegant • free

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ X.400 vs SMTP

X.400 vs SMTP ▻


In article <>, <>
>Receipted Mail

Hmm.  At the receipt notifications BOF at the IETF, an X.400 implementor
(from Australia, no less!) stood up and explained how his company's
product sends a receipt notification when the message reaches the
recipient's message store.

He had some not unreasonable justification for this, but the conclusion
I drew was that X.400 receipt notifications are so meaningless as to be

>Service Provider responsibility for Delivery

The SMTP model is that the originator's host is responsible for
delivery.  To put it in X.400 terms, all mail is sent PRMD - PRMD; there
are no ADMDs.

I still don't understand why anybody thinks that store and forward is
a better model.

>E-Mail to Fax

There's nothing in the X.400 standards that says you have to offer mail
to fax.  I believe there's at least one company in the UK which offers
Internet mail to fax.

>Sender Pays only including broadcasts

Ah, so you *want* to pay at least 15 UK pence per message?  (That's what
a major UK ADMD charges for messages of 1k or less that don't go outside

>Message Audit facilities

Not sure what you mean by this.

>Standard Binary File handling ...We don't all have MIME.

Sorry?  I thought you were writing a procurements specification, or
something similar.  Are you saying you all *do* have X.400 user agents?

>Another concern of mine is what Microsoft Network will be using.

So far as I can see, Microsoft have no interest in standards or
interoperability whatsoever.  Look at their so-called SMTP gateway for
Microsoft mail, for example.

So if they choose X.400, it will be because they believe (correctly,
in my opinion) that they stand a much better chance of building a
conformant X.400 implementation which interoperates with nothing at all.

Tim Goodwin        | "It's always a mistake to assume that the legal
Public IP Exchange | system behaves rationally." -- Robin Fairbairns

Original headers:

From: (Tim Goodwin)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: X.400 MHS Vs SMTP
Date: 25 Jul 1995 15:24:04 +0100
Organization: PIPEX, 216 Science Park, Cambridge, England
Message-ID: <3v2uq4$>
References: <> <>

△ comp.mail.* △

◅ X.400 vs SMTP

X.400 vs SMTP ▻