Keith Moore wrote:
I remember when the email
network was a heterogeneous network consisting of UUCP, BITNET, DECnet,
SMTP, X.400, and a few other things thrown in. It "worked", sort of,
but we had all kinds of problems with the translations at the boundaries,
with addresses from one network leaking past the gateways into another
network, with addresses being "translated" in such a way that they
were no longer usable in the destination network.
There was even an analogy to NAT's "addresses embedded in the application data
stream" problem: if you had an address in your .signature, the gateway couldn't
translate it, so the person receiving your message saw an address they couldn't
use.
--
/================================================================\
|John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp. |Go not to the Vorlons for advice, for they will|
|francis(_at_)ecal(_dot_)com|say both no and sherbert. |
\================================================================/