begin process at 2013 05 19 07:38:32
  Trouver un code source :
 
dans
 

RFC1138 :: Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822

Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021 and RFC 822

Voir toute la rfc dans une seule page

Page : 4 / 92

Télécharger le PDF

Auteur(s) : S.E. Kille

RFC 1138               Mapping X.400(88) and 822           December 1989


      JNT Mail Networks

         A number of X.25 networks, particularly those associated with
         the UK Academic Community, use the JNT (Joint Network Team)
         Mail Protocol, also known as Greybook [Kille84a].  This is used
         with domains and name service specified by the JNT NRS (Name
         Registration Scheme) [Larmouth83a].

         The mappings specified here are appropriate for all of these
         networks.

1.3.  The need for conversion

   There is a large community using RFC 822 based protocols for mail
   services, who will wish to communicate with users of the IPMS
   provided by X.400 systems.  This will also be a requirement in cases
   where communities intend to make a transition to use of an X.400
   IPMS, as conversion will be needed to ensure a smooth service
   transition.  It is expected that there will be more than one gateway,
   and this specification will enable them to behave in a consistent
   manner.  Note that the term gateway is used to describe a component
   performing the protocol mappings between RFC 822 and X.400.  This is
   standard usage amongst mail implementors, but should be noted
   carefully by transport and network service implementors.

   Consistency between gateways is desirable to provide:

      1.   Consistent service to users.

      2.   The best service in cases where a message passes through
           multiple gateways.

1.4.  General approach

   There are a number of basic principles underlying the details of the
   specification.  These principles are goals, and are not achieved in
   all aspects of the specification.

      1.   The specification should be pragmatic.  There should not be
           a requirement for complex mappings for "Academic" reasons.
           Complex mappings should not be required to support trivial
           additional functionality.

      2.   Subject to 1), functionality across a gateway should be as
           high as possible.

      3.   It is always a bad idea to lose information as a result of
           any transformation.  Hence, it is a bad idea for a gateway



Kille                                                           [Page 4]



Nos sponsors


Sondage...

Comparez les prix

CalendriCode

Mai 2013
LMMJVSD
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Consulter la suite du CalendriCode

Photothèque

A découvrir



 
Développement réalisé par Nicolas SOREL (Nix) avec l'aide de : Cyril DURAND et Emmanuel (EBArtSoft), Merci à Vincent pour ses précieux conseils.
CodeS-SourceS.com© Toute reproduction même partielle est interdite sauf accord écrit du Webmaster
CodeS-SourceS.com© est une marque déposée tous droits réservés

Google Coop CodeS-SourceS Google Coop CodeS-SourceS
Temps d'éxécution de la page : 0,312 sec (4)

Nous contacter | Annoncer sur CodeS-SourceS | Mentions légales