Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!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: 5 Dec 89 21:50:38 GMT References: <91266@pyramid.pyramid.com> <1989Nov16.145450.14312@DSI.COM> <7772@cdis-1.uucp> Reply-To: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) Organization: Branch Technology, Ann Arbor, MI Lines: 20 >) 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. >Given that it's only a recommendation, and that RFC976 admits that >some hosts can't do it that way, it would seem silly to classify >failure to do it that way as a "bug" needing "fixing". It would be silly to have elm not follow the recommendations and rules unless there is some very good reason for doing so. Make it a configuration option if some sites need non-standard rfc violating behavior. Doing anything other than (a!b)@c.d violates rfc822 rules (which basically say that the address follows the @ and ! means nothing special). Elm claims to be "100% correct according to the rfc822". -- Jon Zeeff Branch Technology