Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!hplabs!hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfclp!diamant From: diamant@hpfclp.HP.COM (John Diamant) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Why @? (was NO NO NO NO NO, sort of) Message-ID: <8120006@hpfclp.HP.COM> Date: Sat, 4-Jul-87 14:45:48 EDT Article-I.D.: hpfclp.8120006 Posted: Sat Jul 4 14:45:48 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Jul-87 00:41:00 EDT References: <969@mtung.ATT.COM> Organization: HP, Fort Collins, CO Lines: 81 > Okay, so I've got a question. First let me say that I know > next to nothing about this stuff, though I do understand the > concept of domains etc. I am relatively naive about mail/uucp > networking issues. Please don't chop my head off... That's O.K. This is complicated stuff. > > Why wouldn't the following be a "good thing"?: > > Now if I ruled the world, and had thought of domains (which I > might not have, that's a different problem), I might have > tried to preserve the syntax so beloved to all of my subjects, > and invented some "meta-machines" for people to send mail > through, as in: > > mail EDU!UNIV!theirbox!friend > > The path is non-reversible, of course. My friend would type: > > mail COM!ATT!mtune!pgfox > > but that's okay, because we're already used to non-reversible paths. > > I thinks this also eliminates precedence problems (of the NO > NO NO NO NO variety. (As well as the problem that my > addresses are always being swallowed by my line kill > character. :-) Well, it doesn't. I'll explain below. > > Okay-- I've proved my ignorance-- rip me apart. The problem is you are assuming a "bangist" world. The ARPANET (and now the ARPA Internet) has been using "@" for a long time already and they are officially sanctioned and supported by the Network Information Center. UUCP on the other hand, is an anarchy that is trying to get somewhat organized. If "@" never existed, then your suggestion would avoid the ambiguity. But "@" is about as old as "!" (I'm not sure which actually appeared first), so the problem remains. The larger question is which one is better. What you were almost doing above is reinventing domains, except that you were unwilling to make the break and say that these things were no longer routes, but were now addresses (the difference being that a route tells you how to get somewhere and an address simply tells you where someone is in an absolute coordinate system -- like a mail address on an envelope to the post office; imagine what would happen if you had to know the route in order to send a letter to the post office). Well, given an ever expanding network, addresses are clearly superior to routes because it puts the burden on the computer instead of the human. All it involves is upgrading some software (and smail which does much of this for you is free and doesn't require a source license, so anyone can use it if they don't have other alternatives). The next question is whether "!" or "@" is superior. Besides the obvious point that "@" actually means something having to do with location and "!" doesn't, one really isn't superior to the other. The reason why "@" is preferred is that the rules and standards for using "@" style addressing are official and sanctioned. The "!" stuff is all folk-lore and unofficial. For no other reason than to improve consistency and standardization, it makes sense to move to the standardized addressing format. This allows people to intelligently discuss whether a particular mailer conforms to the standards (which are fairly explicit, though there is an occasional ambiguity) or not. > > By the way, I *think* I can be reached at "p.g.fox@mtune!ATT.COM", > but I *know* I can be reached at "ihnp4!mtung!pgf". You're address is fox@mtune.ATT.COM, not fox@mtune!ATT.COM. I don't think any mailer will except a "!" after an "@" (except that there are contorted cases with ARPA style source routes and UUCP stuff mixed in where this would happen, but even then there would be an "@" as the right-most meta-character). > > -- > Paul Fox, AT&T Information Systems, Middletown NJ. > [ihnp4|vax135]!mtung!pgf (201)957-2698 > ---------- John Diamant TSBU UUCP: {hplabs,hpfcla}!hpfclp!diamant Hewlett Packard Co. ARPA Internet: diamant%hpfclp@hplabs.HP.COM Fort Collins, CO