Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site houligan.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!ucf-cs!novavax!houligan!linde From: linde@houligan.UUCP (dlinde) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Mail routing -- problems showing up Message-ID: <130@houligan.UUCP> Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 10:04:48 EDT Article-I.D.: houligan.130 Posted: Thu Aug 22 10:04:48 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 01:47:43 EDT References: <3018@nsc.UUCP> <2875@topaz.ARPA> <4787@mit-eddie.UUCP>, <16110@watmath.UUCP> Organization: GOULD, CSD UTX DEV Lines: 29 I took the time after reading all the RFC that I could find and looking at a few different configuration file (both original release version -- which are easy to spot and locally modified.) to see what the concensus was as to address parsing. I then basically rewrote a large portion of the configuration file so that most of the RFC822 is accepted including what is called the explicit "route address" of the form <@a, @b:user@c>. Incidently, I believe that you are correct in that it may be translated a!b!c!user . Quite a few sites use an address a!b!c!user as a domain address by pattern matching for the sites a, b, c and then rerouting. I did not include this type of parsing. I would like to see a standard set for addresses of the form a!b!user%site2@site1.ARPA that % binds more closely than @ which binds more closely than ! and that if neither % or @ appear all other separator have equal precedence. I feel that this seems to be the majority opinion by what the address parser I have looked at behave. Incidently, how about at the next USENIX conference we all get together and constructively hash out some standards in a commitee concerning this. From the discussion over the past few weeks it seems that there is disagreement and at least an informative class on this topic would be of interest to the community at USENIX if a commitee is not necessary.