Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!jww
From: jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Mail routing -- problems showing up
Message-ID: <1022@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 11:55:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.1022
Posted: Fri Aug  2 11:55:17 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 07:01:35 EDT
References: <3018@nsc.UUCP> <2875@topaz.ARPA> <4787@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: CACI, Inc - Federal, La Jolla
Lines: 68

> I have always held that there should be precedence-specifying characters
> (i know parens are already in use, but we could use another character
> like {, or even change rfc822, for the purposes of cross-net mailing
> where domains are not yet in effect).  It's not that hard to do, and it
> makes sense (like in a compiler).
> I shouldn't have to worry about my context (am I in a *-over-+
> environment, or not?).  Similarly, if I'm on a machine that has
> !-over-@, I should be able to get my UUCP mail through another ARPA
> machine if I need to, e.g.
> 
> Greg Skinner (gregbo)
> {decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
> gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu


Some people would like to make this needlessly complicated.
If one really wishes to support the full range of addresses out there,
it's already a mess.  We have sendmail out there.  It can be modified to
handle most of the existing schemes without adding a full syntax scanner
for an expression evalutor.

We have enough V7, Xenix, System III and System V sites out there to
support that adding something (braces) that will break the smartest
(BSD, sendmail) mailers yet in existence would assure that nothing would
work for years.  Tell me, what are the odds that someone along the way
won't understand "{"?

If one were to adopt unambiguous left-to-right AND right-to-left parsing rules,
there's no reason that anyone should ever need parenthesis.

For example, suppose I'm a non-UUCP arpa site that wants to send to 
ihnp4!cbosgd!mark.  I could write this as
	ihnp4!cbosgd!mark@BERKELEY
Of course, mark might have to reply
	ihnp4!ucbvax!myname@mysite.ARPA		(excuse me, the name is changed)
So far, no good--the "@" has top precedence in the 1st example, 
lowest in the 2nd.

However, why couldn't these two be:
	berkeley!ihnp4!cbosgd!mark
	ihnp4!berkeley!mysite!myname
or, if you like 822, the perfectly valid
	mark%cbosgd%ihnp4@berkeley.ARPA
	myname%mysite%berkeley@ihnp4.UUCP
The first is completely compatible with every UUCP site in the world.
The second is compatible with nearly all Internet Sites, any sendmail
site, and the dictates of NIC and RFC 822.

Why should it matter whether the connection between two sites
is the ARPAnet, a 10 MB/sec ethernet, a 20-foot RS-232 cable, a
time-restricted 1200 baud auto-dial modem, or a wombat carrying
punched cards?  Given all the transport mechanisms that are and
will be used, I think the "!" vs. "@" distinction is becoming
obsolete.

Either solution could be adopted without any more software changes
(come 'on, folks, the existing system doesn't work as it is--don't
break it further).  The only requirement is that each site know
who it can talk directly to and how it should do so--a not unreasonable
requirement for anyone who calls himself a system administrator.

-----
	Joel West	CACI, Inc. - Federal (c/o UC San Diego)
	{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww
	jww@SDCSVAX.ARPA

PS: I have a personal bias towards pathless geographic subdomains
    but it appears domains and UUCP, like oil and water, don't mix.