Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!shadooby!sharkey!b-tech!zeeff From: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: Re: Elm 2.2 PL10 Message-ID: Date: 30 Nov 89 15:48:33 GMT References: <91266@pyramid.pyramid.com> <1989Nov16.145450.14312@DSI.COM> <7758@cdis-1.uucp> Reply-To: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) Organization: Branch Technology, Ann Arbor, MI Lines: 24 >) I beg to differ, RFC976 is quite specific as to how to handle them. >) (RFC976 is how to convert @ addresses to ! for uucp use.) > >From RFC976 of Feb-1986, page 3, para 1, ln 6..8: > a hybrid address with a ! to the left of an @ is ambiguous: > it could be interpreted as (a!b)@c.d or a!(b@c.d). > >It then goes on to cite conflicting standards on the interpretation >of mixed "addresses" and to advise shunning of such things. If you read down a few more paragraphs, you find that RFC976 says "we recommend that any host that accepts hybrid addresses apply the (a!b)@c.d interpretation". Seems pretty clear. RFC1123, in section 5.2.16 makes it clear that @ has precedence over !. It even recommends precedence for ! over %. -- Jon Zeeff Branch Technology