Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!paul
From: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: Mail addresses and RFC1123
Message-ID: <1990Jul12.221812.9201@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 12 Jul 90 22:18:12 GMT
References: <9007111604.AA29811@cs.niu.edu> <TOWFIQ.90Jul12154146@interlan.Interlan.COM>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 38

towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Towfigh) writes:

>>In article <9007111604.AA29811@cs.niu.edu> rickert@CS.NIU.EDU (Neil
>>Rickert) writes:
>>
>>    Now, let's see if I have it straight.
>
>OK.....

 (some stuff deleted)
>   and must forward the mail to gargoyle, even though experience tells
>   me the mail will bounce.  My mailer must not under any circumstances
>   reformat the address as
>      clout!mcdchg!user@gargoyle.uchicago.edu

>True again.

>   although with this address the mail would probably be correctly delivered.

>WHY?  What is the difference between the way these two addresses are
>handled?  Why would one work, and not the other?  If they really do
>yield different results, then gargoyle is broken, and you should not
>rewrite to support their brain-deadedness -- bounced mail is a good
>incentive to fix broken mailers.

Please come tell my director that.  Like or not, some folks were hired to
make email work and not to make excuses (they pay a lot more for the former).
For the forseeable future I will reformat addresses to working forms AND
let the worst violators know that their mail systems are broken.  We are
not yet at the stage where we can insist on 'purity' and still get our jobs
done (and the director's mail delivered).

/pbp
--
         Paul Pomes

UUCP: {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!paul   Internet, BITNET: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
US Mail:  UofIllinois, CSO, 1304 W Springfield Ave, Urbana, IL  61801-2987