Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!utegc!lamy
From: lamy@utegc.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Bracketing in mail addresses - NO NO NO NO NO
Message-ID: <8706121716.AA13932@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 12-Jun-87 13:16:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: ephemera.8706121716.AA13932
Posted: Fri Jun 12 13:16:44 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jun-87 09:56:54 EDT
References: <16238@amdcad.AMD.COM> <3546@cbosgd.ATT.COM>
Organization: University of Toronto, AI group
Lines: 22
Xref: utgpu comp.mail.misc:289 comp.mail.uucp:544
Checksum: 19117

>>As far as I can tell from the documentation, smail gives precedence to the !
>>over the @ when it sees both in the address field of an incoming message.
>
>Since SMAIL is advertised as a RFC-compliant mailer, this can't be right.

Well, the documentation to smail 2.3 says so. "To preserve compatibility with
rmail".  But please enlighten me: why should there ever be a mixed address
in UUCP land?

There is also no need rewrite the envelope unless the destination CANNOT deal
with it, so only gateways should have to do it, right?  And a UUCP to RFC822
gateway can always produce a <> route, and a RFC822 to UUCP gateway can always
produce a ! route, right?

It is much more likely that we can get fixed gateways than asking all sites in
the universe to perpetuate the confusion between a route and an address.  What
Rahul is asking is a new way to write routes, and we already have perfectly
unambiguous ways to do that.

Jean-Francois Lamy                        lamy@ai.toronto.edu
AI Group, Dept Computer Science           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!lamy
University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4