Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!rutgers!princeton!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!husc6!necntc!adelie!cdx39!jc
From: jc@cdx39.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Forcing mail routing and brackets in mail addresses
Message-ID: <617@cdx39.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Jan-87 13:26:16 EST
Article-I.D.: cdx39.617
Posted: Wed Jan 21 13:26:16 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Jan-87 09:40:18 EST
References: <577@sask.UUCP>
Organization: Codex Corp, a division of Motorola; Canton, MA, USA
Lines: 54
Keywords: mail, routing, RFC822

> 
> The mail standard which seems to be in use here is described in the RFC822
> document.  Section 6.2.3. of this document, along with the sections that
> describe syntax, allow for "domain literals", which are strings enclosed in
> square brackets ("[", "]").  These are supposed to be passed uninterpreted
> to the destination host.  

Great.  Now if any of our neighbors implemented it...

There's also the point that other brackets "(){}<>" should also be
recognized.  Mathematicians long ago learned that this improves the
readability of complicated expressions.  

I've gotten several letters explaining that this was considered and
rejected in favor of domain notation.  I haven't yet seen any of the
discussion, and would be interested in seeing the justification.  It
seems to me that domain notation just made things worse, because it
introduced more operators (or new meanings to old operators), without
doing anything to the fundamental problem of many operators and no
universally-accepted precedence rules.

[Note that I'm not saying domains are a bad idea; I agree it is a
good idea.  But the notation added severely to the confusion and the
difficulty of explaining to a novice user how to respond to mail.]


> To bypass sites that automatically re-route mail, try:
> ...!re-routing-host!next-host![path-you-don't-want-re-routed!user]
>
I've tried this a few times, and gotten back complaints like
	Unknown host: [path-you-don't-want-re-routed 
> [path!user]@first-host-after-re-routing-host
>
This usually gets something like 
	Unknown user: [path!user]
> 
> RFC822 makes it clear that this is a hack added to allow people to work
> around bad mail systems; seems like they designed it for just this case.  

This is the wrong attitude, just like it would be wrong for a compiler
writer to say that you don't need parentheses because you can always 
do a calculation without them.  That's not the point.  Grouping notation 
makes for easier reading.  Multiple types of brackets makes for even
easier reading.  As long as we have more than one mailer, brackets 
would be a great aid to the poor users trying to navigate the net.

Anyhow, if anyone has any of the discussions explaining why email
notation is better without brackets, I'd like to get a copy.

-- 
	John M Chambers			Phone: 617/364-2000x7304
Email: ...{adelie,bu-cs,harvax,inmet,mcsbos,mit-eddie,mot[bos]}!cdx39!{jc,news,root,usenet,uucp}
Smail: Codex Corporation; Mailstop C1-30; 20 Cabot Blvd; Mansfield MA 02048-1193
Clever-Saying: If we can't fix it, it ain't broke.