Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cstvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!ukc!cstvax!scott
From: scott@cstvax.UUCP (Scott Larnach)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: More thoughts on mail relays
Message-ID: <373@cstvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 17:21:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: cstvax.373
Posted: Thu Oct 24 17:21:30 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Oct-85 07:18:05 EDT
References: <1813@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: scott@cstvax.UUCP (Scott Larnach)
Distribution: net
Organization: Unix Support, Edinburgh Regional Computing Centre
Lines: 27
Summary: purity of addresses desirable

>Two: with mixed-syntax addresses like one!two!user@three there will always be
>the parse ambiguity.
> [ ... ]
>Given this constraint,
>I have no choice but to argue that ANY ADDRESS, AT ANY TIME, MUST BE CODED IN
>ONLY ONE SYNTAX.  That is, we declare mixed mode addresses like the above as
>invalid.
>
>Ben Cranston   ...seismo!umcp-cs!zben      zben@umd2.ARPA

Yup, I agree. WITHIN any network, an address should be in the style
standard to that network. All the three addressing styles I have come
across (uucp, 822, Greybook (UK)) have standard ways of specifying
source routes (ok, 822 is a bit funny). Conversion is possible (without
going in to the limitations of particular mailers). Then "all" you need
to do to ensure that routes work is to require gateways to properly
convert between those styles.

Now there's the rub. I once made this suggestion publicly and I got
lots of people mailing back saying you're living in a fantasy world
chum, you'll never get the gateways to come round to doing that.
But I can't help thinking it would be worth the effort. The alternative
seems to be the same old hassles dragging on & on & on....
-- 
Scott Larnach			Janet: scott@uk.ac.ed.cstvax
Edinburgh Unix Support		Arpa:  scott@cstvax.ed.ac.uk
Tel:	+44 31 667 1081 x2629	Uucp:  scott@cstvax.uucp