🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <608@brl-sem.ARPA>, dpk@brl-sem.ARPA (Doug Kingston <dpk>) writes:
> In article <1322@ncr-sd.UUCP> matt@ncr-sd.UUCP (Matt Costello) writes:
> >What is the status of using
> >	@host1:@host2:user@host3	# 1
> >versus the 'correct' but ugly
> >	@host1,@host2:user@host3	# 2
>
> Only the second form (#2) is correct and only if the address above
> is preceded by a phrase and enclosed in angle brackets.  See RFC-822 for
> details and read the grammer.  It's quite explicit.  In an SMTP transaction
> the phrase and angles can be dropped as the address is enclosed in angles
> already.  To quote the standard (page 27 of RFC-822):
>      Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages
>      6.  ADDRESS SPECIFICATION
>      6.1.  SYNTAX
>      address     =  mailbox                      ; one addressee
>                  /  group                        ; named list
>      group       =  phrase ":" [#mailbox] ";"
>      mailbox     =  addr-spec                    ; simple address
>                  /  phrase route-addr            ; name & addr-spec
>      route-addr  =  "<" [route] addr-spec ">"
>      route       =  1#("@" domain) ":"           ; path-relative
> =====================^ Indicates a comma separated list (see section 2.7)
>      addr-spec   =  local-part "@" domain        ; global address
>      local-part  =  word *("." word)             ; uninterpreted
>                                                  ; case-preserved
>      domain      =  sub-domain *("." sub-domain)
>      sub-domain  =  domain-ref / domain-literal
>      domain-ref  =  atom                         ; symbolic reference

Say what?  According to my eyeballs, and to this editor (vi), there are
no commas at all within these lines.  Note that the original message wasn't
asking for the syntax of things like routes or domains; he was asking for
the part that described commas.  You seem to have quoted all the relevant
stuff except the answer to his question.

BTW, what does the comma notation *mean*?  Is it a list of hosts to send
the mail to, i.e., a route?  Is is a list of alternatives?  Is it a list
of other places the mail can be delivered to if host3 isn't available?
To use it correctly, you have to know more than the syntax; you have to
understand the semantics.  So far, I have seen a lot of people toss the
syntax around, without any hint as to what it means.  How about someone
posting that portion of the RFC?

> I am certainly not going to defend it as being the most elegant standard
> that could have been chosen, but its the one we have and it must be
> conformed with as it exists.

One quibble:  "must" should be replaced with "should".  It's clear from
the plethora of mailers out there that there is nothing that they *must*
do (except reject or drop my mail:-).  In fact, I have yet to see the
above syntax in even a single piece of mail that I've ever received.
Has anyone out there implemented it?  If so, please send me some mail,
so I won't be able to make the above claim anymore (;-).






















[To satisfy the requirement that my text lines outnumber the quoted lines.]

-- 
	John M Chambers			Phone: 617/364-2000x7304
Email: ...{adelie,bu-cs,harvax,inmet,mcsbos,mit-eddie,mot[bos]}!cdx39!{jc,news,root,usenet,uucp}
Smail: Codex Corporation; Mailstop C1-30; 20 Cabot Blvd; Mansfield MA 02048-1193
Clever-Saying: Uucp me out of here, Scotty; there's no AI on this node!