Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!meccts!ahby
From: ahby@meccts.MECC.MN.ORG (Shane P. McCarron)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Precedence in network mail addresses
Message-ID: <2767@meccts.MECC.MN.ORG>
Date: Sun, 17-May-87 11:49:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: meccts.2767
Posted: Sun May 17 11:49:58 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 17-May-87 19:47:02 EDT
References: <588@bsu-cs.UUCP> <958@xanth.UUCP> <559@smidefix.liu.se>
Reply-To: ahby@meccts.UUCP (Shane P. McCarron)
Organization: MECC Technical Services, St. Paul, MN
Lines: 27

In article <559@smidefix.liu.se> lel@ida.liu.se (Lennart Lovstrand) writes:
All sorts of excellent information about routing and routing
symbols...
>Now, since "%" is the natural routing operator on top of "@", an
>address like:
>   node1!user@node2
>that is autorouted through "node3" will probably end up looking as:
>   node1!user%node2@node3
>meaning:
>   node3 -> node2 -> node1 -> user

It seems to me that undef RFC 976, something autorouted through "node3"
should be transmitted as:
    node2!node1!user@node3

Also, since "node2" started life after an @, it must by definition have a 
domain suffix attached to it.  So, if th initial address had been:
    node1!user@node2.edu
it would be autorouted as:
    node2.edu!node1!user@node3
which, under RFC 976 and UUCP would be translated for forwarding as:
    node3!node2.edu!node1!user
-- 
Shane P. McCarron		UUCP	ihnp4!meccts!ahby, ahby@MECC.MN.ORG
MECC Technical Services		ATT	(612) 481-3589
(C) Copyright 1987 Shane P. McCarron
	Redistribution allowed only if your recipients can redistribute