Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ll-xn!oberon!skat.usc.edu!blarson
From: blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: mixed addresses
Message-ID: <10858@oberon.USC.EDU>
Date: 19 Jul 88 05:27:21 GMT
References: <8807142016.dusip.andrew@stl.stc.co.uk> <44378@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>
Sender: news@oberon.USC.EDU
Reply-To: blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson)
Organization: USC AIS, Los Angeles
Lines: 32

In article <44378@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes:
[quoting from another article]:
>> Firstly '%' as an address character.  IT IS NOT LEGAL RFC822.

>Nonsense. It is perfectly legal under RFC822 (look at the grammar).
>The fact that you are mucking with the LOCAL-PART, which you are supposed
>to leave totally alone, is the cause of the problem.

>% is NOT a synonym for @. It is a valid part of the local-part
>of the address and should not be interpreted my [by?] any site save
>the destination machine.

Right so far.

>Anyone who gives % precedence over ! should fix their mailer.

Both % and ! are legal in the local-part acording to rfc822.
Therefore, with an rfc822 conforming mailer I can do anything I want
with addresses with my machine name to the right of the @ .  There are
two separate conventions about !  and % that have no relitive
priority.  (Neither is a documented Internet standard.)

[The only mailer I have written handles the % routing hack (after
first checking for a local user with a % in their name) but has no
special treatment of !.  The users have enough trouble with arpanet
and bitnet mail without the oddities of uucp mail.  Fixing it to
understand rfc822 routing is a higher priority.  Even in the mail
groups rfc822 routing is frequently misundersood: the angle brackets
are not optional in an rfc822 route.]
Bob Larson	Arpa: Blarson@Ecla.Usc.Edu	blarson@skat.usc.edu
Uucp: {sdcrdcf,cit-vax}!oberon!skat!blarson
Prime mailing list:	info-prime-request%ais1@ecla.usc.edu
			oberon!ais1!info-prime-request