Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!wang!fitz From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Paths and Precedence (Re: Question about From: lines) Message-ID: Date: 6 Jul 90 02:23:39 GMT References: <2833.2674c5b3@mccall.com> <696@logicon.com> Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA Lines: 23 Makey@Logicon.COM (Jeff Makey) writes: > There is nothing wrong with RFC 1123. The relevant section (5.2.16) says: > It is suggested that "%" have lower precedence than any other > routing operator (e.g., "!") hidden in the local-part; for > example, "a!b%c" would be interpreted as "(a!b)%c". > The use of parentheses in the example is a poor attempt at using > algebraic notation to describe source routing, but the part about > "lower precedence" indicates to me that "a!b%c" means "deliver to "a", > who should interpret "b%c" as a local-part. This is the One True > Order of Precedence. That's exactly the opposite of how I read it. The words "higher precedence" and "lower precedence" apparently mean different things to different people, and I won't use them. The RFC seems to be saying that ! binds tighter than %, whence the interpretation of a!b%c as (a!b)%c. This implies immediate delivery to c, which is solely responsible for interpreting a!b however it wishes. I agree with you that interpreting a!b%c as a!(b%c) would be better. --- Tom Fitzgerald Wang Labs fitz@wang.com 1-508-967-5278 Lowell MA, USA ...!uunet!wang!fitz