Log in

No account? Create an account
A note from the others - Whizistic's Lair — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | never working right seemingly ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Links:| arstechnica.com the-whiteboard.com userfriendly.org ctrlaltdel-online.com slashdot.org ]

A note from the others [Nov. 21st, 2004|08:44 pm]
How in the name of all things unholy does "this sender has no X.400 address"
translate into "this is a recipient problem" FOR SMTP E-MAIL!?!  What the
fucking fuck were those pig-fucking morons of Redmond thinking when they
thought up that error?  It's not a recipient problem, you mammalian amoeba!
The SENDER hasn't been given an address for some crack-addled protocol which
shouldn't have made it anywhere outside some pot-hazed research lab.  And
why would internal e-mail, which would be more likely to use X.400
internally, work at the same time that SMTP doesn't, when it's an X.400
address you don't have?

[User Picture]From: chosen179
2004-11-22 11:21 am (UTC)
breathe bill breathe.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lawrencebacchus
2004-11-22 06:16 pm (UTC)
programmers don't have to be smart, that's an engineering problem.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: whizistic
2004-11-23 02:42 am (UTC)

More info

That up there was a rant from the scary devil monestary, not something I thought up, though I have experienced the very same issue in a past job. I just though the phrase "crack-addled protocol which shouldn't have made it anywhere outside some pot-hazed research lab." is perfect for x.400. And a lot of other things too, like ISDN. And SLIP. and any non-ethernet local networking topology (e.g. ARCnet, token ring, fddi, SNA. Especially SNA. fucking snake cables those were - they had a life all their own.).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)