Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!caen!ox.com!ox.com!emv From: emv@ox.com (Ed Vielmetti) Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail Subject: Re: addressing priority Message-ID: Date: 20 Jan 91 05:32:56 GMT References: <2505@sapwdf.UUCP> <4018@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <1991Jan19.155744.17286@mp.cs.niu.edu> Sender: usenet@ox.com (Usenet News Administrator) Organization: OTA Limited Partnership, Ann Arbor MI. Lines: 16 In-Reply-To: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu's message of 19 Jan 91 15:57:44 GMT In article <1991Jan19.155744.17286@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes: It is not certain that these addresses are equivalent. It might be more accurate to say that hosta!hostb!hostc!user is equivalent to user%hostc.UUCP%hostb.UUCP@hosta.UUCP, at least where the hostnames are unqualified. No, it would be just plain wrong to say that. a!b!c!user is a perfectly valid, unambiguous, and logical uucp path; the other thing you posted is not a legal RFC domain name (for any RFC), nor is it ever very likely to be used by anyone sensible or generated by any correctly configured mailer. --Ed emv@ox.com