Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!uunet!rick
From: rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: sendmail parsing questions
Summary: source routes should be forbidden
Message-ID: <53257@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 24 Apr 89 14:49:49 GMT
References: <357@anvil.oz> <701@arisia.Xerox.COM> <1635@ur-cc.UUCP>
Organization: UUNET Communications Services, Falls Church, VA
Lines: 27

In article <1635@ur-cc.UUCP>, msir@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mark Sirota) writes:
> > That is not a legal RFC822 address, please consider using something
> > like "user%machine1@machine2.dom" instead.
> 
> That is not a legal RFC822 address, either.  Please never recommend the
> use of '%' in addresses.  Please consider using something like
> 
> 	@machine2.dom:user@machine1
> 
> Unfortunately, this is not quite legal either, is it?  I seem to recall
> that route-addrs need an accompanying phrase and should be in <>'s, as in:

If you don't know what you're talking about, keep quiet and save everyone
a lot of hassle.

user%machine1@machine2.dom is PERFECTLY LEGAL. Everything to the
left of the at sign is the local part and you should not be
interpreting it at all. The local part is totally machine2's problem.

Source routes such as you "recommend" are strongly discouraged. They
are a pain to parse and often end up being an undeliverable address.

I continue to maintain that we should find everyone who thinks
rfc822 source addresses are a good idea and kill them. This will set
mailer "science" ahead 10 years.

---rick