Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!ucsd!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!karl_kleinpaste From: karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Paths and Precedence (Re: Question about From: lines) Message-ID: Date: 29 Jun 90 14:26:44 GMT References: <-:A4XE3@xds13.ferranti.com> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Organization: Ohio State Computer Science Lines: 25 peter@ficc.ferranti.com writes: Seriously, do people really think @foo,@bar:zap@baz is a better syntax? (this is a rhetorical question relating to aesthetics, not an attempt to derail RFC822) Source routes (@foo,@bar:zap@oz) have been duly denigrated by RFC1123, derailing RFC822 already. They're explicitly discouraged. p.51: A Sender-SMTP SHOULD NOT send a RCPT TO: command containing an explicit source route using the "@...:" address form. Thus, the relay function defined in section 3.6 of RFC-821 should not be used. DISCUSSION: The intent is to discourage all source routing and to abolish explicit source routing for mail delivery within the Internet environment. Source-routing is unnecessary; the simple target address "user@domain" should always suffice. --karl -- Depression \di-'presh-un\ n. A condition observed on return from 3 weeks' vacation to find ~2000 mail messages waiting for oneself. (And people marvel that I employ GNUS as a mail-reading interface.)