Path: utzoo!censor!becker!bdb
From: bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: %-@ formalization (was Re: sendmail parsing questions - my comments)
Message-ID: <510@becker.UUCP>
Date: 17 May 89 14:43:54 GMT
References: <1635@ur-cc.UUCP> <53257@uunet.UU.NET> <89May11.183003edt.11589@neat.ai.toronto.edu> <89May13.164744edt.11600@neat.ai.toronto.edu> <7196@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Reply-To: bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker)
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario
Lines: 28

In article <7196@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
|Now is the time for the powers-to-be to introduce the use of <..> for
|bracketing within an address.  Then both <a!b!c>@d.e and a!b!<c@d.e>
|will be unambiguous.
|
|     a!b!<c@d.e>!<f@g.h>!<j%k%l@m.n>!user

	I agree! I've been thinking this for a while.
	Although I haven't completely thought it through,
	it looks like the "%" form becomes redundant
	with bracketing as well...

|As for the old complaint that addresses aren't routes, the answer is
|that they frequently are, and the more different networks interconnet
|the more true this will be in the future.

	Also true. In some glorious (hopefully!) future
	nets will be interaddressable in a way analgous
	to the international telephone system. Until then,
	we need to adopt forms which will not delay that
	goal...

Cheers,
-- 
   __	 Bruce Becker	Toronto, Ont.
w \cc/	 Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
 `/v/-e	 BitNet:   BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET
_<  >_	 "A kinder, gentler CON..." - A. Weishaupt