[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ih] .UK vs .GB
- Subject: [ih] .UK vs .GB
- From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 16:57:34 +1200
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CA+CiqoUyGDkyZJrY=aeY_WXdco8g_Jcm=Zf694yPKPbELq8CQg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+CiqoU0=T9Hu=a1PqwYoKWhfTnyVV2toK2+dNPCEsJqf+UbjQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]>
On 14/04/2018 16:00, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote:
>
>
>> On 13 Apr 2018, at 19:44, Eric Gade <eric.gade at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The X.400/X.500 systems were simply going to replace everything anyway, so the wisdom went.
>
> ?
>
> But of course!!
Why on earth we didn't all switch to X.400 is hard to imagine. For example,
the X.400 human-readable version of a JANET address via a gateway would have
been so simple:
C = gb; ADMD = gold 400; PRMD = gw; DD.jnt-mail = user(a)domain.subdomains
(Quoted from Recommendation for a shorthand X.400 address representation, 1989.)
Brian