Re: routes vs addresses (was Re: ! and @ -- which RFC ?)

Article View: comp.mail.headers

Article #553

#553

From: Joe Buck
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 1988 18:19

17 lines
1365 bytes

In article <603@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes:
>>classify the following as route or address.
>>jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net
>This is an address of the form "local-part@uunet.uu.net" the "%" hack is
>nowhere defined.  Also, you're confusing things because epimass has
>a direct uunet link.

Nope.  Such mail will actually go from uunet to wrl.epi.com and then
to us, or take a completely different route depending on what's in
the map data.  epimass does not talk directly to uunet.  I give that
address so people with obsolete Internet mailers that don't
understand MX records (and there are a hell of a lot of them) can
mail to me.  Since MX records for .epi.com point to uunet.uu.net,
it's really equivalent to jbuck@epimass.epi.com for those purposes.  
-- 
- Joe Buck  {uunet,ucbvax,sun,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
	    Old Internet mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net

Technical Details

Message-ID: <2058@epimass.EPI.COM>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!oliveb!epimass!jbuck

References: <603@fig.bbn.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!oliveb!epimass!jbuck
From: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: routes vs addresses (was Re: ! and @ -- which RFC ?)
Message-ID: <2058@epimass.EPI.COM>
Date: 8 Apr 88 18:19:19 GMT
References: <603@fig.bbn.com>
Reply-To: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck)
Distribution: na
Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 17

Reply to Parent Message