Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-unix!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ptsfa!vixie!paul From: paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Bracketing in mail addresses - NO NO NO NO NO Message-ID: <665@vixie.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Jun-87 14:54:01 EDT Article-I.D.: vixie.665 Posted: Tue Jun 16 14:54:01 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jun-87 07:52:36 EDT References: <654@vixie.UUCP> <995@killer.UUCP> Reply-To: paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) Organization: Vixie Enterprises, San Francisco Lines: 62 Xref: mnetor comp.mail.misc:368 comp.mail.uucp:629 In article <995@killer.UUCP> elg@killer.UUCP (* Airwick *) writes: >in article <654@vixie.UUCP>, paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) says: >> Now the fact is that there IS NO SUCH THING as a bang address. Bangs are >> used in routes, not addresses. At-signs are used in addresses. There is >> such a thing as a 'route-addr', which uses colons and commas, but I really >> don't understand much of that (which is too bad, since my sendmail.cf does!) > >Gee, I'll have to tell that to the mailer here at machine "killer". It doesn't >understand @ signs at ALL. Doesn't ihnp4!foo!bar mean the same thing as >bar@foo, as far as differentiating the machine and ID of the reciever goes? >The only difference is that ihnp4!foo!bar also includes a little routing >info.... As far as identifying the host and user of the recipient, both forms have that information, yes. The extra routing information is usually wrong, since the From: line is not supposed to be modified, and the UUCP From_ line is usually not used for replies (not by mailx, anyway, and if there's an option for this it ought to be the default, or at least prominently displayed in the documentation). >If we define an "address" as a "unique identifier identifying a) the machine >of the recipient, and b), the ID of the recipient", then it's obvious that >both "bang" paths and "at" addresses are, in fact, both addresses, even though >one includes more information than the other. If you define "address" that way, yes, both forms are an address. The point I've been making is that the Internet _doesn't_ define an address that way, and there's less work involved in using the existing meaning of "address" than in changing all the Internet sites to use a different definition. >>A user of the ! syntax can get SMAIL for free, and join the internet. A >>program that understands both bangs and at-signs can either do it the way >>the standards tell us to do it, or do it some other way. If the program >>adheres to the standard, everybody's mail will get through. > >There's one problem with this. The vast majority of system operators out there >are NOT mail gurus. Their machine comes with /bin/mail and /bin/mailx, their >mailer is rmail (which talks to uux), and they're busy doing their JOB instead >of trying to keep up with the latest "standards" to come out. Call it "head in >the sand" if you will, but most of these people don't even KNOW that SMAIL >exists. Yeah, I know. Whatever vendors ship to clients, becomes the unofficial standard. People support it because it exists, and often it's an accident, not intended for the wide support it eventually receives. I don't know how to solve this. I do consulting work, and I've set up SMAIL for money before -- it takes about 30 minutes once you know what to do. For the vast majority of people who will only use what their vendor supplies, I have no immediate answer. I think that X.400 will get wide support, since ISO standards are very popular with vendors; unfortunately, an X.400 mailer is a salable product, and will probably be an extra-cost option in future UNIX(tm) releases, which means that UNIX and e-mail will probably stop going hand-in-hand. Whether X.400 is a good thing technically or not, I can't comment -- I don't know. -- Paul A Vixie Esq 329 Noe Street {ptsfa, crash, hoptoad, ucat}!vixie!paul San Francisco ptsfa!vixie!paul@ames.ames.arc.nasa.gov CA 94116 paul@vixie.UUCP (415) 864-7013