🚀 go-pugleaf

In reply to:

   Date: Wed 11 Apr 84 23:12:40-PST
   From: David Roode <ROODE@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
   Subject: observation
   To: Header-people@MIT-MC.ARPA
   Location:  EJ286    Phone: (415) 859-2774

   The headers on the following message display a nightmarish combination
   of domain-style host names and routing-style recipient addresses.
   I cannot help making this observation.  A previous message
   referred to confusion between RHEA.DEC and RHEA.ARPA (RICE-RHEA).
   What gives the domain "DEC" legitimacy?
     
       Return-Path: <@MIT-MC:RSX-DEV@DEC-MARLBORO.ARPA>
       Received: from MIT-MC by SRI-NIC.ARPA with TCP; Wed 11 Apr 84 04:40:06-PST
       Date: Wed 11 Apr 84 07:24:34-EST
       From: covert%castor.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA
       Subject: Re: losing header munging at udel relay
       Sender: RSX-DEV@DEC-MARLBORO.ARPA
       To: Gds@MIT-XX.ARPA
       cc: header-people@MIT-MC.ARPA
       Reply-To: covert%castor.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA
       In-Reply-To: Message from "Greg Skinner <Gds@MIT-XX.ARPA>" of Wed 11 Apr 84 04:48:59-EST
       UUCP-address: "{ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!castor!covert"
       ENET-address: "Castor::Covert"
       Phone: "(603) 884-8271 or DTN 264-8271"
     
   -------

I don't see any problem with the above header.  The "DEC" is part of
the local address (not the domain). The UUCP-address and ENET-address
fields are user comments since they are not defined in RFC-822.
What the problem?

Assuming the gateway from DEC to ARPA mail domain puts the DEC address
in the Internet local address and adds a valid Internet domain name
to the right of the "@" there is no problem for the Internet mail world.

Bill Wells
wcwells@Berkeley.ARPA