Article View: comp.mail.misc
Article #4248Re: Bracketing in mail addresses - NO NO NO NO NO
From: john
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1987 12:04
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1987 12:04
46 lines
2990 bytes
2990 bytes
In article <4106@teddy.UUCP>, jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes:
> How about an example. I need to send '@' mail to a site (call it
> site3) three uucp hops away which is a gateway to an '@' network:
> ... [and sites along the way handle @ differently] ...
> site1!site2!site3!user@foo.NETWORK
> user@foo.NETWORK, and dies. What is "smail" supposed to generate, if I
> give it an address like user@foo.NETWORK if we are not on that
> network? Would site3!user@foo.NETWORK@site2.UUCP@site1.UUCP work?
> Unlikely, or unreadable, at best. What if MY site ONLY talks bang.
> Will site!site3!user@foo.NETWORK@site2.UUCP work? I doubt it!
> [etc.]
First of all, you can *never* have more than one @-sign per address
if you want to preserve any sanity at all. [Exception: route-addrs.]
This is what RFC976 and smail take care of! A "class 3" UUCP site,
including all sites running smail, will accept do.ma.in!user, not just
user@domain. So in the first scenario above, your mail transport
agent should generate the address
site1!site2!site3!foo.NETWORK!user
Now with an intelligent user agent, or even a not so intelligent user
agent that just passes the address along to smail, you should just be
able to say
mail user@foo.NETWORK
and have smail generate the above all-bang address for you. The
RFC822 mail headers (To: line, etc.) should only have the
user@foo.NETWORK address, and the rmail commands that get passed from
uucico to uucico will only have bangs.
I've been using ".NETWORK" since that's what you used in your
examples, but you should be aware that what you're going to see on the
right side of the @-sign is almost always a domain address, which
might or might not imply any particular network. Addresses that
explicitly indicate a network (".ARPA", ".UUCP", ".BITNET", etc.) are
using "pseudo-domains", and are becoming increasingly more rare, in
favor of network independent domain names (ending in ".COM", ".EDU",
".UK", or whatever).
You (and anyone else interested) should read RFC976 (and maybe the
"What is a Domain?" paper), included with the smail documentation.
--
John Owens Old Dominion University - Norfolk, Virginia, USA
john@ODU.EDU old arpa: john%odu.edu@RELAY.CS.NET
+1 804 440 4529 old uucp: {seismo,harvard,sun,hoptoad}!xanth!john
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1269@xanth.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!mcnc!xanth!johnReferences:
<16238@amdcad.AMD.COM> <3546@cbosgd.ATT.COM> <749@mcgill-vision.UUCP> <4106@teddy.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!mcnc!xanth!john From: john@xanth.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Bracketing in mail addresses - NO NO NO NO NO Message-ID: <1269@xanth.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Jun-87 08:04:08 EDT Article-I.D.: xanth.1269 Posted: Tue Jun 16 08:04:08 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jun-87 03:30:10 EDT References: <16238@amdcad.AMD.COM> <3546@cbosgd.ATT.COM> <749@mcgill-vision.UUCP> <4106@teddy.UUCP> Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va. Lines: 46 Summary: bangs on the uucp transport layer, ats in the headers