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.