Article View: comp.mail.misc
Article #3747Re: Is '@' ever needed?
From: David S. Herron
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 04:19
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 04:19
50 lines
2610 bytes
2610 bytes
In article <797@minya.UUCP> jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes:
>This may sound silly, but I recently realized, and testing on an
>assortment of machines has so far verified, that there seems to be no
>reason to ever use '@' in a mail address. If you always use '%',
>mailers that I've tested all seem to accept it and convert it to '@'
>when necessary. I'm wondering if this really works everywhere.
Yes this does sound silly. However, having read many of your postings
in the past I realize you're not asking this question in jest.
If anything should go away it is the `%' since
-- `@' is more expressive (read it as `at')
-- the `%' was, and always has been (except for JANET),
a hack.
At any rate.. The %-hack notation is not gauranteed to work
everywhere. After all it is in the local-part of the address
and is not supposed to be looked at except at the system specified
by the domain-part of the address. Therefore the meaning of
the %-hack is not knowable anywhere except at that site.
I've run across at least one place where `%' is used in the
local-part and with different semantics than the %-hack. I believe
this is the gateway for MCIMAIL.COM ... whichever gateway this
is, it is translating X.400 addresses into
S=surname%G=given%OU=Org-Unit%O=Org%PRMD=xxx%ADMD=xxx%C=xx@gateway.dom
Decoded a bit ... each portion of this is an attribute in an
X.400 address and using our friend, the `%', as a separator.
>This isn't entirely trivial. I've had some trouble at times explaining
>to novice users what the rules for email addresses are. They are
>mostly unbelieving at the complexity of it all. ("Why can't they just
>...?") I've been trying to find simple ways of explaining it.
Funny. I've been getting along with user@dom.ain for years and
rarely having to use funky routing stuff like '!' and '::' and etc.
I do worry when someone is so backwards to use `@host.uucp' in
their header but it seems to get through anyway. (The magic
of pathalias I assume..)
David
--
<- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com>
<-
<-
<- "MS-DOS? Where we're going we don't need MS-DOS." --Back To The Future
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9133@gollum.twg.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!twg.com!davidReferences:
<797@minya.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!twg.com!david From: david@twg.com (David S. Herron) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Is '@' ever needed? Keywords: '%' Message-ID: <9133@gollum.twg.com> Date: 20 Jun 91 04:19:07 GMT References: <797@minya.UUCP> Organization: The Wollongong Group, Palo Alto, CA Lines: 50