jordan@ucbvax.ARPA (Jordan Hayes) (09/08/85)
In article <10306@ucbvax.ARPA> fair@ucbvax.ARPA (Erik E. Fair) writes: >I think it's long past the time that unofficial gateways to non-internet >networks start using route addresses. Examples: > >user%host.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA => @WISCVM.ARPA:user@host.BITNET ^^^^^^^^^^^ UUCP-LAND ... NOTE THIS BITNET GATEWAY! >user%host.CSNET@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA => @CSNET-RELAY.ARPA:user@host.CSNET >user%host.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA => @DECWRL.ARPA:user@host.DEC > >This is carefully defined in RFC822, a standard that is going to have >its third birthday in five days. Well put. While you're at it, sendmail maintainers should translate user@host.OTHER-NET => @OTHER-NET-RELAY.DOMAIN:user@host.OTHER-NET and stop fiddling with stupid (non-standard) '%' thingamabobs. ------------ Jordan Hayes jordan@UCB-VAX.BERKELEY.EDU UC Berkeley ucbvax!jordan +1 (415) 835-8767 37' 52.29" N 122' 15.41" W
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (09/09/85)
Are you saying that you want to put those route addresses on the From: lines of mail? It may not be a good idea. People frequently would have to interpret and type those addresses themselves, and not only are those addresses something of a bitch for humans to deal with, but lots of user interface software that is in widespread use on the ARPANET (for example) can deal with "normal" @-sign addresses in a reasonable way but might blow up if we tried to force people to use those route addresses. Those addresses are a cure possibly worse than the disease. My recommendation is: LEAVE THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE FOR OUR CURRENT UNOFFICIAL GATEWAYS at least on the From: lines. With full domainizing coming up, the name translation gateway problems will go away fairly soon anyway. At least the % syntax and such works now for most existing code in our current hybrid environment. But nobody really want to deal with handling those routing addresses (especially humans) unless they really have to. Once we have full domains, the problems go away anyway. In our current hybrid environment, the use of % and @, while not theoretically "pure," has proven quite workable and works with the vast majority of existing software. They're also comparatively simple for people to understand, since they can see what the right-hand-side of the @-sign means. I see nothing to be gained by starting to force those route addresses on people at this late date when the problem that they attempt to address will be pretty much a non-problem fairly soon. It's hard enough for people to get mail through the unofficial gateways now. Forcing those routes on them might make things more difficult for many people as they get lost in addresses that are unfamiliar, harder to remember, and just generally a pain for many users. --Lauren--
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (09/14/85)
The preferred BITNET gateway is psuvax1. There's no need to push your
BITNET stuff out over the ARPANET, in fact, it's discouraged.
A good number of sites talk to psuvax1, and many more talk to ihnp4, so
you should use ihnp4!psuvax1!... whenever possible.
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu