🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1402@munnari.oz> kre@munnari.oz (Robert Elz) writes:

> In article <837@astrovax.UUCP>, wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) writes:

>> When a ! route is turned into RFC822 route ...
>> The safest thing to do seemed to be to
>> have the ruleset put a set of angle brackets around it.

> Unfortunately, even if you could avoid the double << >> problem
> (which sendmail could easily arrange to do), this still doesn't
> necessarily generate a legal address.  Anywhere a route-addr is
> used, there must also be a "phrase" in the address as well.
> Sendmail would need to invent this phrase in some cases, and
> inventing something rational isn't necessarily easy.

If there were any one particular wart in 822 that it would be reasonable 
to "by gentleman's agreement" ignore, it would be this requirement for a
non-null phrase.  Nevertheless, I think what we are talking about doing
(translating an address from one domain to another) falls into the category
of "munging".  The existing RFC standard for header munging suggests the
unmunged address be included as a pseudo-comment in the munged address.
This can simultaniously satisfy the syntactic requirement for "phrase".

So one might want to translate the address:

fee!fie!foe!fum!jack

into:

"fee!fie!foe!fum!jack" <@fee,@fie,@foe:jack@fum>

Seems as reasonable a default as any... My Internet to BitNet relay 
implementation does just this.
-- 
                    umd5.UUCP    <= {seismo!mimsy,ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!zben
Ben Cranston zben @ umd2.UMD.EDU    Kingdom of Merryland UniSys 1100/92
                    umd2.BITNET     "via HASP with RSCS"