Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!brl-adm!brl-sem!dpk From: dpk@brl-sem.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers Subject: Re: Routing using @host1:@host2:user@host3 Message-ID: <608@brl-sem.ARPA> Date: Tue, 3-Feb-87 03:07:42 EST Article-I.D.: brl-sem.608 Posted: Tue Feb 3 03:07:42 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 4-Feb-87 00:42:56 EST References: <4611@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <837@astrovax.UUCP> <1322@ncr-sd.UUCP> Reply-To: dpk@brl.arpa (Doug Kingston) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 62 Keywords: routed addresses RFC-822 Summary: Its not valid. Use "phrase <@H1,@H2,@H3:U@H4>" In article <1322@ncr-sd.UUCP> matt@ncr-sd.UUCP (Matt Costello) writes: >What is the status of using > @host1:@host2:user@host3 # 1 >versus the 'correct' but ugly > @host1,@host2:user@host3 # 2 > Only the second form (#2) is correct and only if the address above is preceded by a phrase and enclosed in angle brackets. See RFC-822 for details and read the grammer. It's quite explicit. In an SMTP transaction the phrase and angles can be dropped as the address is enclosed in angles already. To quote the standard (page 27 of RFC-822): Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages 6. ADDRESS SPECIFICATION 6.1. SYNTAX address = mailbox ; one addressee / group ; named list group = phrase ":" [#mailbox] ";" mailbox = addr-spec ; simple address / phrase route-addr ; name & addr-spec route-addr = "<" [route] addr-spec ">" route = 1#("@" domain) ":" ; path-relative =====================^ Indicates a comma separated list (see section 2.7) addr-spec = local-part "@" domain ; global address local-part = word *("." word) ; uninterpreted ; case-preserved domain = sub-domain *("." sub-domain) sub-domain = domain-ref / domain-literal domain-ref = atom ; symbolic reference >Do InterNet routers correctly handle the colon form of the address? No. >I've noticed that sendmail sites tend to use form #1, and MMDF sites >(on CSNET) tend to use form #2. What I'd really like to know is if >form #1 is enough of an unofficial standard (like the magic '%' rule) >to make it universally acceptable? No. Don't use it. If SENDMAIL is then its wrong and should be fixed. >Matt Costello, matt.costello@SanDiego.NCR.COM (registered w/ CSNET) > {sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!matt I am certainly not going to defend it as being the most elegant standard that could have been chosen, but its the one we have and it must be conformed with as it exists. -Doug- Ballistics Research Laboratory,