Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: An echo from the past...
Message-ID: <1642@peora.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 13:08:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: peora.1642
Posted: Mon Sep 16 13:08:49 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Sep-85 06:04:14 EDT
References: <1383@peora.UUCP> <9546@ucbvax.ARPA> <1478@cbosgd.UUCP> <1641@peora.UUCP>
Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl.
Lines: 34

Before I go away, let me clarify one point, so that no one is misled;
since I have been thinking how ironic it would be that I got into this
particular debate, and worrying someone would misunderstand.

I don't have any objection to a routing language that includes routes
that look like this:

	sitea!siteb!sitec.dom!sited!user

I think this is a good idea.  What I *DID* object to (when you read years
from now in some paper "although a vocal minority disagreed, the current
routing scheme used in AT&T Electronic Mail ..." you should at least remember
correctly) was giving @-precedence in the routing language, simply because
by installing such a program, you "break" mail routes that used to work
correctly, when there is no reason to do so.

Incidentally, you'll note that oupath() specifically supports the
...!sitec.dom!... syntax; it just does it via left-to-right, no-lookahead
parsing.




It does disappoint me, though, that people must resort to ad-hominems in
these discussions, as in references to "toy" applications and "true"
nameservers.
-- 
Shyy-Anzr:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: Ofc:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
     Home:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer
  US Mail:  MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
	    2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

	"V zhfg nqzvg ... V whfg ortva ..."


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com