🚀 go-pugleaf

>>As far as I can tell from the documentation, smail gives precedence to the !
>>over the @ when it sees both in the address field of an incoming message.
>
>Since SMAIL is advertised as a RFC-compliant mailer, this can't be right.

Well, the documentation to smail 2.3 says so. "To preserve compatibility with
rmail".  But please enlighten me: why should there ever be a mixed address
in UUCP land?

There is also no need rewrite the envelope unless the destination CANNOT deal
with it, so only gateways should have to do it, right?  And a UUCP to RFC822
gateway can always produce a <> route, and a RFC822 to UUCP gateway can always
produce a ! route, right?

It is much more likely that we can get fixed gateways than asking all sites in
the universe to perpetuate the confusion between a route and an address.  What
Rahul is asking is a new way to write routes, and we already have perfectly
unambiguous ways to do that.

Jean-Francois Lamy                        lamy@ai.toronto.edu
AI Group, Dept Computer Science           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!lamy
University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4