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!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!plus5!hokey
From: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: The TRUTH about .UUCP
Message-ID: <899@plus5.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 22:07:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: plus5.899
Posted: Tue Oct  8 22:07:29 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Oct-85 07:20:56 EDT
References: <593@down.FUN> <10476@ucbvax.ARPA> <12317@Glacier.ARPA> <10490@ucbvax.ARPA> <273@graffiti.UUCP>
Reply-To: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey)
Distribution: net
Organization: Plus Five Computer Services, St. Louis, MO
Lines: 22

In article <273@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>	If (the address contains BANGS &&
>	    I am adjacent to the next site in the path)
>		Send it to them;

It is always fascinating watching people follow the learning curve.  I can
hear the laughter of the folks who watched me follow the same path.

The problem with this approach, Peter, is it *assumes* the first site of the
bang path is the next hop, while in actuality the @site on the end might have
been the neighbor who sent the mail along.

Talk to Peter Honeyman about pathparse.

I still think that it is better to break things cleanly and definitely;
therefore, I still think hybrid routes *within the UUCP domain* (Hi jer!)
should be rejected by the first site able to do so.  In UUCP land, I still
think everything should be in ! format, including RFC822 headers.
really mui
-- 
Hokey           ..ihnp4!plus5!hokey
		  314-725-9492