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!solomon@wisc-crys.arpa
From: solomon@wisc-crys.arpa
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: what to do with (as yet) illegal domains
Message-ID: <8405161336.AA10157@wisc-crys.arpa>
Date: Wed, 16-May-84 09:36:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou3c.576
Posted: Wed May 16 09:36:46 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 17-May-84 03:25:00 EDT
Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Lines: 22
To: header-people@mit-mc.arpa
Cc: ibm-project@wisc-crys.arpa

We are in the process of setting up a BITNET/CSNET mail forwarder
and are trying to figure out the best way to munge addresses of
mail from BITNET to ARPANET.  When we get the mail, we expect it
to have an 822 header (actually 733, but that's another story) with
something like USER@BNETHOST in the From: field.  We intend to
munge it to something like EITHER

	(1) <@WISCVM.ARPA:USER@BNETHOST.BITNET>
(yes, I guess with some noise before the "<"), OR
	(2) USER%BNETHOST.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

(Of course, we expect to accept either form.) Alternative (1) adheres
better to the spirit of current Arpanet standards, while (2) adheres to
de facto current practice, as well as the current letter of the law,
since the "illegal" domain ".BITNET" appears only as part of the local
part of the address.  Ultimately, of course, we'd like to set up a
BITNET domain (I don't care if it's a top-level or lower-level domain)
complete with a full Domain Name Server, and allow Internet users
simply to type USER@BNETHOST.BITNET.EDU (or whatever).

Does anybody have any opinions about this?  Would anybody mind if
a source-route has an unknown domain in other than the first position?