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