Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!cfe#
From: cfe#@andrew.cmu.edu (Craig F. Everhart)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: Routing using @host1:@host2:user@host3
Message-ID: <oU9vpky00VsLQCE5fm@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 4-Feb-87 17:15:12 EST
Article-I.D.: andrew.oU9vpky00VsLQCE5fm
Posted: Wed Feb  4 17:15:12 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Feb-87 08:39:12 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University
Lines: 11
ReSent-Date: Wed,  4 Feb 87 17:15:55 est

ReSent-From: postman#@andrew.cmu.edu

ReSent-To: nntp-xmit#@andrew.cmu.edu

Return-path: <cfe#@andrew.cmu.edu>

X-Trace: MS Version 3.21 on ibm032 host apollo, by cfe (469).

To: outnews#ext.nn.comp.mail.headers@andrew.cmu.edu

In-Reply-To: <1322@ncr-sd.UUCP>


Neither
	@host1:@host2:user@host3
nor
	@host1,@host2:user@host3
is correct.  The correct form is
	<@host1,@host2:user@host3>

If the first form is surrounded by angle-brackets, it corresponds to an early
draft of RFC822, so there's some chance that more sites will recognize it
than by chance.  But then again, we can ask why you're looking for ways to
bend standards?  Why not generate the correct form?