Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2A (XREF PATCH) 05/16/85; site neuro1.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!neuro1!sob From: sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Mail routing -- problems showing up Message-ID: <548@neuro1.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 04:50:00 EDT Article-I.D.: neuro1.548 Posted: Mon Aug 12 04:50:00 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 21:19:06 EDT References: <3018@nsc.UUCP> <2875@topaz.ARPA> <4787@mit-eddie.UUCP> <16110@watmath.UUCP> Reply-To: sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber) Distribution: net Organization: Neurophysiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx Lines: 38 In article <16110@watmath.UUCP> atbowler@watmath.UUCP (Alan T. Bowler [SDG]) writes: >These potential capabilities seem to be ignored in all the discussion. >Is this because: > 1) I am interpreting RFC822 incorrectly, and the capabilities are not there? I think you are reading it correctly, but some people who read this list are not familiar with it. > 2) SENDMAIL can't do either of these things, or no one has yet figured > out how to make it do this? My sendmail configuration parses both just fine. The problem is that not everyones does and no one is quite sure how much "rewriting" should be done. In your first case, [<@site1,@site2,@site3:user@site4>] I would want the mailer to rewrite to <@site2,@site3:user@site4> and send it to the mailer that would send it to site1 hopeing that site1 could also cope with thi syntax. Other might want it rewritten to user%site4%site3%site2@site1. Still others might want site1!site2!site3!site4!user. The latter can be parsed by all uucp sites, neither of the others can be guarenteed to be useable. A uniform syntax would make this a lot easier, but no one can agree what that syntax is beyond the original bang notation. The second one ["user!site"@gatesite.domain] assumes that gatesite can correctly parse user!site.... this allows the addressor to use whatever knowledge s/he has about the gatesite or perhaps the network it is the gateway for. Sendmail cannot interfere with this and therefore should (and does in in the configuration I have) not alter what is in the quotes EVEN IF IT IS WRONG, and just route to the gatesite. > 3) No one has ever written a full parser for RFC822 type addresses? I think there are more than one. I think part of the problem is the few gray areas in RFC822. -- Stan uucp:{ihnp4!shell,rice}!neuro1!sob Opinions expressed Olan ARPA:sob@rice.arpa here are ONLY mine & Barber CIS:71565,623 BBS:(713)660-9262 noone else's.