jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (09/16/85)
Before I go away, let me clarify one point, so that no one is misled;
since I have been thinking how ironic it would be that I got into this
particular debate, and worrying someone would misunderstand.
I don't have any objection to a routing language that includes routes
that look like this:
sitea!siteb!sitec.dom!sited!user
I think this is a good idea. What I *DID* object to (when you read years
from now in some paper "although a vocal minority disagreed, the current
routing scheme used in AT&T Electronic Mail ..." you should at least remember
correctly) was giving @-precedence in the routing language, simply because
by installing such a program, you "break" mail routes that used to work
correctly, when there is no reason to do so.
Incidentally, you'll note that oupath() specifically supports the
...!sitec.dom!... syntax; it just does it via left-to-right, no-lookahead
parsing.
It does disappoint me, though, that people must resort to ad-hominems in
these discussions, as in references to "toy" applications and "true"
nameservers.
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"V zhfg nqzvg ... V whfg ortva ..."