Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Imminent Death of This Thread Predicted Message-ID: <=DU4O_3@ficc.ferranti.com> Date: 22 Jul 90 16:32:03 GMT References: <26A738A8.725B@tct.uucp> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 41 In article <26A738A8.725B@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > * Is source routing necessary? Yes. Very rarely, but occasionally. It should be supported but *not* encouraged, particularly at the MUA level. > * Will source routing always be necessary? So long as sites are free to make UUCP connections. > * In the transition from Internet transport (SMTP) to or from > UUCP transport, should a gateway mailer change the format of > the message *envelope* address? Only if it know that the system it's talking to needs it, and only if information is preserved. > Should it change the format > of the message *header* address(es)? No. > * If UUCP is considered merely a mail transport medium, why not > leave RFC822 addresses intact even when a message is sent via > UUCP? Good question. > * Given that the RFC822 syntax for source routing has been > obsoleted, and assuming that source routing will be necessary > for some time to come, what syntax should be used for source > routing? Pure bang paths. They work. > * Does the Internet DNS have delusions of grandeur in presuming > to know about *every* mail domain, even those which aren't on > the Internet? [1/2 :-)] Yes, but they should be encouraged in this delusion lest the greater ill of X.400 replace them. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U`