Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!wang!comm.wang.com!lws From: lws@comm.wang.com (Lyle Seaman) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Sending from Internet (MIT) to UUCP (Ireland) Message-ID: <1990Dec18.142213.23820@comm.wang.com> Date: 18 Dec 90 14:22:13 GMT References: <1990Dec6.214052.25275@athena.mit.edu> Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms. Lines: 42 abennett@athena.mit.edu (Andrew Bennett) writes: >A user of mine got the following message. He's tried everything, but >every reply seems to bounce back. Can anyone piece together what the >proper reply address should be? > [ ... ] >> >> From: REL::"motcid!corkmail@uunet.UU.NET" >> To: uunet!rel.mit.edu!jerry%oldrel.dnet@uunet.UU.NET >> CC: >> Subj: sister >> >> From: glas!mary (Mary Dwyer) >> Message-Id: <9012041425.AA09924@> >> To: motcid!uunet!rel.mit.edu!jerry%oldrel.dnet >> Subject: sister >> >> Hi Jerry, It looks like Jerry is on some kind of funny network inside MIT, Decnet, perhaps? I can't say how Jerry should get out of that net, but I would use the following as an address from uunet: "uunet!corkmail!motcid!glas!mary" or maybe just "uunet!motcid!glas!mary". Sometimes, it's informative to source-route a path in a loop, eg, uunet!corkmail!uunet!me, then uunet!corkmail!motcid!corkmail!uunet!me. However, some sites think they're smart and they collapse the loop, so when the mail comes back, you have to check the postmarks and see where it actually went. In fact, it would be easier to determine a correct route for this item if Andrew had posted the postmarks from the received item as well. It's worth noting that the world is still pretty split about how to handle the % hack, with some sites giving it precedence over ! and others not. This is an unfortunate situation. The only solution is to avoid mixing % and ! if at all possible. -- Lyle Wang lws@capybara.comm.wang.com 508 967 2322 Lowell, MA, USA Source code: the _ultimate_ documentation.