Thanks to you and Mike Wells. I am now looking for the paracetamol.
The conspiracy theorists can relax. I must say that I actually haven't
bothered to learn anything about x.400 until now, so it isn't a case of me
being misled, so much as not being interested. I confess that I have tended
to switch off when the protagonists started waving RFCs at each other, on
the basis that it didn't really matter what we used, as long as it worked.
In retrospect, I can see I should have paid more attention!
I do not look forward to explaining in 200 words why SMTP is as good or
better than X.400 (or even what they both are) may be tricky, given that
conveying to many audiences what NHSnet does is quite hard going.
I shall now take myself off and read up about the subject.
God help me, I'll be scanning in my desk top to use as Windows wallpaper
next.
A
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] On Behalf Of Ewan Davis
> Sent: 10 June 1998 20:06
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: X.400 and Internet Protocols on NHSNet
>
> X.400 is no more or less able to support a structured message
> than SMTP, any more than a brown envelope is better at carrying a
> form than a white one.
>
> You can put structured (EDIFACT, XML, SGML, ASTM12.38 or
> whatever) or unstructured messages with equal ease in to either
> an X.400 or an SMTP message.
>
> I afraid I share Midges view that these sort of
> miss-understanding are a result of malicious mis-information from
> those who continue to try and prove they are still in a race
> which everyone knows was lost a long time ago. I'm sure it takes
> a lot to mis-lead someone as IT literate and generally well
> informed as Andrew and this worries me.
>
|