Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!uwvax!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!nis!sialis!jhereg!mark
From: mark@jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Elm 2.2 PL10
Keywords: All mail is lost if /usr/spool is full !
Message-ID: <362@jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG>
Date: 21 Nov 89 00:38:54 GMT
References: <91266@pyramid.pyramid.com> <1989Nov16.145450.14312@DSI.COM> <7739@cdis-1.uucp> <1989Nov19.174411.13834@DSI.COM>
Reply-To: mark@jhereg.UUCP (Mark H. Colburn)
Organization: Open Systems Architects, Inc., Mpls, MN
Lines: 20

In article <1989Nov19.174411.13834@DSI.COM> syd@DSI.COM writes:
>I beg to differ, RFC976 is quite specific as to how to handle them.
>(RFC976 is how to convert @ addresses to ! for uucp use.)
>Elm is supposed to be a complient mailer, so it should follow the 
>standard.

I beleive that if you read RFC976 closely you will notice that it gives 
a specific RECOMMENDATION as to how hybrid (a.k.a "mixed") addresses 
should be handled, but stops short of actually specifying how it shall 
be done in standard conforming software.  Moreover, RFC976 mentions that 
both interpretations of hybrid addressing are potentially useful.

There is a subtle differentiation between a standard specifying how
something shall be done vs. recommending how something should be done, 
but ultimately, if a recommendation is not adhered to, an application can
still be considered to be standard conforming.

-- 
Mark H. Colburn                       mark@Minnetech.MN.ORG
Open Systems Architects, Inc.