Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mimsy!chris From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: address writing by gateways Message-ID: <7679@mimsy.UUCP> Date: Fri, 24-Jul-87 14:29:50 EDT Article-I.D.: mimsy.7679 Posted: Fri Jul 24 14:29:50 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 15:40:32 EDT References: <684@vixie.UUCP> <8120005@hpfclp.HP.COM> <715@vixie.UUCP> <1130@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 42 >In article <715@vixie.UUCP> paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) writes: >>It seems unnecessary, since nobody needs to reply to anyone in the middle of >>a route -- just the first. The others are relative. If they all have to be >>registered, then one assumes that every host will know how to get mail to >>them, and wouldn't need route-addrs. (This makes sense. An example: <@athena.mit.edu,@hiddengate,user@hiddenhost> The sending mailer need only be able to figure out the part between `<' and `,'; the fact that `hiddengate' and `hiddenhost' are not registered does not have to matter. Despite this, RFCnnn [fill in the n's] says it does.) In article <1130@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> ambar@athena.mit.edu (Jean Marie Diaz) writes: >Well, in the Arpanet world at least, that's a nice theory. But quite >often these days, the ONLY way for me to get mail to a given machine on >the west coast is to route through ucbvax: > >foo%decwrl.dec.com@ucbvax.berkeley.edu But since decwrl.dec.com *is* a registered domain name, you could use <@ucbvax.berkeley.edu:foo@decwrl.dec.com> >This isn't a matter of us not "knowing" decwrl.... If you were sending to an unregistered host, <@berkeley.edu:him@bouncy.ucb-test> would be officially illegal. Nonetheless it would probably work. The string him%bouncy.ucb-test@berkeley.edu would be legal. Why, then, is theversion illegal? -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: seismo!mimsy!chris