Re: mail address parsing

Article View: net.mail.headers

Article #404

#404

From: Greg Skinner
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 1984 09:28

17 lines
1442 bytes

The reason why you can't use () for specifying precedence in routing,
is, I believe, that () are used for comments in an RFC822 header.  At
least, in the local Chaosnet mailers it is.

However, user-specified precedence seems to me to be a good idea,
instead of having all these path servers all over the place.  Path
servers which do relays only to hosts they know about are fine, but
path servers which carry the full UUCP database can get out of whack,
causing strange things to happen.  From my UUCP experience at work
(houxm), a number of machines have different ideas of who they talk
to, and how they talk to who they talk to.

As an aside, what's the socket number for the UUCP path server?  (Mail
only, please, and you can send it to ihnp4!houxm!gregbo if you want.)

--gregbo
-------

Technical Details

Message-ID: <929@hou3c.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!Gds@MIT-XX.ARPA

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!Gds@MIT-XX.ARPA
From: Gds@MIT-XX.ARPA (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: mail address parsing
Message-ID: <929@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 04:28:46 EST
Article-I.D.: hou3c.929
Posted: Fri Nov  9 04:28:46 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 09:30:39 EST
Sender: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Lines: 17
To: header-people@MIT-MC.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "wcwells%ucbopal.CC@Berkeley (William C. Wells)" of Wed 24 Oct 84 02:24:44-EDT