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|
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|say both no and sherbert. |
\================================================================/
