Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!giza.cis.ohio-state.edu!karl
From: karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: sigh (was Re: Short-circuiting a route)
Message-ID: <KARL.89Jul13145504@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 13 Jul 89 18:55:04 GMT
References: <1062@aber-cs.UUCP> <59767@uunet.UU.NET> <3648@ncar.ucar.edu>
	<3842@phri.UUCP> <330@capmkt.COM>
	<Jul.12.10.54.13.1989.18547@NET.BIO.NET> <14467@bfmny0.UUCP>
	<12495@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: Ohio State Computer Science
Lines: 18
In-reply-to: steve@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU's message of 13 Jul 89 18:40:48 GMT

steve@polyslo.calpoly.edu writes:
	   My belief is that if you have:
		   a!c!foo.bar.edu!d!e
	   that rewriting this to:
		   e%d@foo.bar.edu
	   makes sense, and SHOULD work

Not quite.  Rewriting to
	d!e@foo.bar.edu
should work, because [a] foo.bar.edu will have to be prepared to strip
its name off of either end, but [b] may have (wisely) chosen not to
support %-hacks in any form, whereas [c] the presence of d!e in the
original path implies that foo.bar.edu was expecting at least that much.

This is, of course, modulo fidonet.org-style problems.  I have yet to
hear back from the FIDONet person again on my suggestions to him.

--Karl