Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!msir From: msir@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mark Sirota) Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail Subject: Re: sendmail parsing questions Message-ID: <1671@ur-cc.UUCP> Date: 25 Apr 89 21:11:20 GMT References: <357@anvil.oz> <701@arisia.Xerox.COM> <1635@ur-cc.UUCP> Reply-To: Mark Sirota Organization: Univ. of Rochester, Computing Center Lines: 25 In article <1635@ur-cc.UUCP> I write: >In article <701@arisia.Xerox.COM> Lovstrand.EuroPARC@Xerox.COM writes: >>In article <357@anvil.oz> michi@anvil.oz (Michael Henning) writes: >>> destination "relay_host" and a user part "user@machine1@machine2.dom". >> >> 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 Okay, okay. You are right, Lennart's address is perfectly legal. It's just not kosher, if you will. It's a bad idea to recommend the use of %'s in addresses, since it is not reasonable to expect any sort of consistent behavior out of them. Someone pointed out that we are just stuck with a bad standard (RFC822, that is), which doesn't provide any reasonable mechanism for routing. When will we have a new standard? -- Mark Sirota - University of Rochester, Rochester, NY Internet: msir@cc.rochester.edu Bitnet: msir_ss@uordbv.bitnet UUCP: ...!rochester!ur-cc!msir