Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pacbell!sactoh0!unify!jwc
From: jwc@unify.UUCP (J. William Claypool)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Making smail2.5 understand <user>%<site>@<site>
Keywords: patches, smail2.5, %@
Message-ID: <1175@unify.UUCP>
Date: 12 Oct 89 03:13:09 GMT
References: <1989Oct5.053531.24832@egsner.cirr.com> <9672@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> <586@trwrc.RC.TRW.COM> <Oct.9.13.58.43.1989.23064@NET.BIO.NET> <126099@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: jwc@unify.UUCP (J. William Claypool)
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA, USA
Lines: 24

In article <126099@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> argv@sun.UUCP (Dan Heller) writes:
>Awww, come on... don't leave 'em hanging.  You should at least summarize..
>% has lower precedence than @, but is evaluated left to right like @.
>It's precedence is equal to !.
                    ^^^^^
Seems to me that % should have LOWER precedence than !. 

>
>the following are "similar" addresses:
>
>    user%addr1@addr2
>    addr1!user@addr2
>    addr2!addr1!user

How about:
    addr2!user%addr1
shouldn't this be routed the same?

>In all cases, the mail goes thru addr2 first, then to addr1, then to the user.
-- 

Bill Claypool    W. (916) 920-9092 |I know what I know if you know what I mean
jwc@unify.UUCP   H. (916) 381-4205 |------------------------------------------
    ...!{csusac,pyramid}!unify!jwc |  SCCA SFR Solo II   74 es  1984 CRX 1.5