Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!decuac!avolio
From: avolio@decuac.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Rewriting rules (folklore)
Message-ID: <1195@decuac.DEC.COM>
Date: Fri, 27-Feb-87 09:47:07 EST
Article-I.D.: decuac.1195
Posted: Fri Feb 27 09:47:07 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Mar-87 12:32:00 EST
References: <3261@rsch.WISC.EDU> <587@sjuvax.sju.UUCP>
Distribution: comp
Organization: DEC SWS, Landover, MD
Lines: 22
Keywords: uucp, rewriting-rules

In article <587@sjuvax.sju.UUCP>, bbanerje@sju.UUCP (B. Banerjee) writes:
> This isn't entirely relevant to his question, but one of the
> things that bugged me about smail is that it doesn't handle the
> '%' stuff.  Eg. steve%gvlv1@burdvax where gvlv1 isn't in the
> map becomes 'burdvax!steve%gvlv1'.  This looks a lot like an ugly
> mixed mode address to me.  Because of this (and also route addresses
> and the like), I wrote a little program which sits between sendmail
> and smail, and does some preliminary rewriting of addresses first.

But it *does* handle it.  Since it has no idea what '%' will mean to
burdvax, in your example, it passes it as is to burdvax.  There are
many systems that will choke if they get a "uucp" address for s system
that is not connected to them via UUCP.  In other words, they "know"
to change "local address" u%something to u@something before trying it,
but might not change something!user to user@soemthing.  In other
words, I believe that your transformation is incorrect.

Since in most cases % has a lower priority than ! or @ (and ! should
be lower than @, but that's another story), what smail does seems
correct to me and replaceing a % with a ! certainly seems wrong.  

Fred.