Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site plus5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!plus5!hokey
From: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: automatic address rewriting by smart gateways
Message-ID: <805@plus5.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 14:28:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: plus5.805
Posted: Tue Jul 30 14:28:06 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 20:16:32 EDT
References: <568@decuac.UUCP> <531@down.FUN> <570@decuac.UUCP> <537@down.FUN> <9390@ucbvax.ARPA> <10077@Glacier.ARPA> <545@down.FUN>
Reply-To: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey)
Organization: Plus Five Computer Services, St. Louis, MO
Lines: 14

UUCP mail routes can be viewed as addresses.  If so, they are addresses with
(at least) implicit routes.  The problem is that one cannot tell with syntactic
analysis if a given bang path is explicitly or implicitly routed.

I know that Peter does a really splendid job of determining this stuff with
the aid of a really neat database to semantically disambiguate routing.

The point I am not making in the debate between ! and . is that bang paths
are *implicitly rooted*, while a fully qualified domain name is *explicitly
rooted*.  This is the crux of the issue!

-- 
Hokey           ..ihnp4!plus5!hokey
		  314-725-9492