Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA
From: MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: "blaming Unix SendMail"
Message-ID: <493@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Apr-84 19:20:01 EST
Article-I.D.: hou3c.493
Posted: Fri Apr 20 19:20:01 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Apr-84 07:23:12 EST
Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Lines: 12
To: pallas@PESCADERO.ARPA
Cc: smoot@UT-SALLY.ARPA, Header-People@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "Joseph I. Pallas <pallas@Pescadero>" of Fri 20 Apr 84 15:06:26-PST
Postal-Address: 725 Mariposa Ave. #103; Mountain View, CA 94041
Phone: (415) 497-1407 (Stanford); (415) 968-1052 (residence)

SMTP source routing is completely useless, due to restrictions on
what may be in the SMTP source route.  It might as well not exist.

My point was that relative addressing is not at all a desirable
thing.  It should only be looked at as a last resort.  Within a
single naming registry, it should be possible to use absolute
addressing.  Between naming registries, it should be possible to
give "an absolute address within an absolute registry" -- this
was the original concept behind domains although now domains refer
to administrative rather than technical entities (naming registries
traditionally have followed the latter rather than the former).
-------