Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!lsuc!becker!bdb
From: bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Is '@' ever needed?
Keywords: '%'
Message-ID: <110190@becker.UUCP>
Date: 24 Jun 91 03:30:32 GMT
References: <797@minya.UUCP>
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 47

In article <797@minya.UUCP> jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes:
|This may sound silly, but I  recently  realized,  and  testing  on  an
|assortment  of machines has so far verified, that there seems to be no
|reason to ever use '@' in a mail address.   If  you  always  use  '%',
|mailers  that  I've tested all seem to accept it and convert it to '@'
|when necessary.  I'm wondering if this really works everywhere.

	BBBZZZZTTTT  Wrong answer, but thanks for playing.

	Most uucp mailers will NOT understand "%" in an
	email address. They think it is a legal character
	in a name. This includes "smail 2.5" as well
	(unless it has been patched to do so).

|[...]
|But then I come to the internet notation, and people look at me really
|strangely  when  I  try to explain why you write a list backwards, use
|'%' for all but the last separator, and a '@' for the very  last  one.
|(About all  I  can  say is that it is a good thing to think about when
|someone is trying to tell you how well-designed it all is. :-)

	Why are you using any "%" at all? The
	whole point of "@"-type addresses is
	to avoid making end users specify
	explicit routes.

|So.  Are there any mailers lurking about for  which  '@'  is  actually
|necessary?   Can  you  really always use '%' instead?  I'm not talking
|about internal mail-system stuff, of course.  I'm also not looking for
|any treatises on how '@' is the original and '%' is an add-on; history
|is very interesting,  but  it's  not  the  current  point.   I'm  just
|interested  in  what the poor suckers trying to get it to work have to
|type to the computer.  Maybe you should try %-only addresses  on  your
|mailer and report if it chokes. If we turn up any, maybe we can harass
|the vendors to get them upgraded...

	I don't understand how you have come to the
	conclusion that "%" is necessary. If your
	mailing software can't resolve routes, then
	it needs upgrading to something that can do
	so when given an "@"-type address.

-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker	Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu
 `\o\-e	 UUCP: ...!utai!mnetor!becker!bdb
 _< /_	 "Ferget yer humanity, do the poot" - devo