Article View: comp.mail.misc
Article #716Re: use of % (was: Making smail2.5 understand <user>%<site>@<site>)
From: Eliot Lear
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1989 23:13
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1989 23:13
26 lines
1687 bytes
1687 bytes
In article <1960002@hp-ptp.HP.COM> toddp@hp-ptp.HP.COM (Todd_Poynor) writes:
> However, it's a fairly safe bet that this convention will become rather
> widespread, now that it's recommended by such an influential source.
By no means was did we intend to recommend use of the % hack. It is
merely mentioned in discussion as a method that has been used in the
past. However, what you do to your local-part is your business.
To quote the RFC (Section 5.2.6):
DISCUSSION:
The intent is to discourage all source routing and to
abolish explicit source routing for mail delivery within
the Internet environment. Source-routing is unnecessary;
the simple target address "user@domain" should always
suffice. This is the result of an explicit architectural
decision to use universal naming rather than source
routing for mail. Thus, SMTP provides end-to-end
connectivity, and the DNS provides globally-unique,
location-independent names. MX records handle the major
case where source routing might otherwise be needed.
--
Eliot Lear
[lear@net.bio.net]
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<Oct.17.16.13.16.1989.27379@NET.BIO.NET>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!bionet!learReferences:
<126303@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1960002@hp-ptp.HP.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!bionet!lear From: lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: use of % (was: Making smail2.5 understand <user>%<site>@<site>) Message-ID: <Oct.17.16.13.16.1989.27379@NET.BIO.NET> Date: 17 Oct 89 23:13:16 GMT References: <126303@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1960002@hp-ptp.HP.COM> Organization: Natl Computer Resource for Mol. Biology Lines: 26