Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!philapd!ssp15!jos
From: jos@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (Jos Vos)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Mail survey #1
Message-ID: <535@ssp15.idca.tds.philips.nl>
Date: 5 Sep 88 09:51:17 GMT
References: <4740@b-tech.UUCP> <4747@b-tech.UUCP> <4748@b-tech.UUCP>
Organization: Philips TDS, P.O. Box 245, 7300 AE Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
Lines: 26

In article <4748@b-tech.UUCP> zeeff@b-tech.UUCP (Jon Zeeff) writes:
]
]The conclusion is that From lines should not be touched if they are ok (ie, 
]certainly don't create something like "user%origin.com@thissite.edu" 
]from "user@origin.com").  If there are unregistered uucp sites, convert 
]to the form:
]
]From: site2!site!user@thissite.com
](even if rfc976 suggests you don't) 
This means that we assume that everybody agrees on the precedence...
Did you know that even in documentation of mailers like Elm the
precedence is wrong? (I didn't check the code...).
Or am I wrong?

]> 6) Should the address "zzz!user%site.com" be sent to site.com or zzz?  
]> (ie, what should have precedence)
]
]Most people say zzz so let's standardize on that (and avoid creating things
]like this whenever possible).
The address zzz!user%site.com isn't a valid RFC822 address, is it?
This means that the precedence of zzz!user@site.com and zzz!user%site.com
differ?

-- 
-- ######   Jos Vos   ######   Internet   jos@idca.tds.philips.nl   ######
-- ######             ######   UUCP         ...!mcvax!philapd!jos   ######