Raph Levien <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > Without any X.400 experience, this is just speculation, but my guess is > that translating all email back and forth between RFC 822 + MIME and X.400 > would be a nightmare, both in complexity and in user problems. > I'm sure > this mailing list has someone who has implemented an X.400/Internet > gateway and can tell us about it (for example, how many lines of code are > in the product?). Not too bad: about 250,000 lines. Excuse my naivete, but I thought ASN.1 was only a description of a language, like Backus-Naur Form (BNF), and thus using ASN.1 to describe something does not imply that you have to use X.400. I agree with your complexity concerns in general although I don't know enough about MSP to know whether your X.400 concerns are valid. The BNF forms in the RFCs are certainly much easier to read than any ASN.1 rules I've read. I also find the X.400 terminology to be a hindrance to understanding. What with the new Notary and MIME RFCs, Internet mail now seems to offer more than X.400. There are several Internet mail features that X.400 does not offer (as I've been told by our X.400 guys) such as multipart/alternative or parallel. I, too, would like to see consensus in a secure mail product; otherwise, I'll need to implement each standard in our product (Worldtalk Internet gateway) . Bill Wohler <email@example.com> ph: +1-415-854-1857 fax: +1-415-854-3195 Say it with MIME. Maintainer of comp.mail.mh and news.software.nn FAQs. If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.