solomon@wisc-crys.arpa (05/16/84)
We are in the process of setting up a BITNET/CSNET mail forwarder and are trying to figure out the best way to munge addresses of mail from BITNET to ARPANET. When we get the mail, we expect it to have an 822 header (actually 733, but that's another story) with something like USER@BNETHOST in the From: field. We intend to munge it to something like EITHER (1) <@WISCVM.ARPA:USER@BNETHOST.BITNET> (yes, I guess with some noise before the "<"), OR (2) USER%BNETHOST.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA (Of course, we expect to accept either form.) Alternative (1) adheres better to the spirit of current Arpanet standards, while (2) adheres to de facto current practice, as well as the current letter of the law, since the "illegal" domain ".BITNET" appears only as part of the local part of the address. Ultimately, of course, we'd like to set up a BITNET domain (I don't care if it's a top-level or lower-level domain) complete with a full Domain Name Server, and allow Internet users simply to type USER@BNETHOST.BITNET.EDU (or whatever). Does anybody have any opinions about this? Would anybody mind if a source-route has an unknown domain in other than the first position?
reilly@udel-relay.ARPA (G B Reilly) (05/16/84)
We've been set up to accept both BITNET and MAILNET addresses for some time now. The position we take is that addresses destined for the Internet should be of the form: name%BTHOST.BITNET@UDEL-RELAY.ARPA But, in inbound mail we accept this form, and the "name@BTHOST.BITNET" as destined for the mailnet site (remember that all that is left of the ":" is informational only.) Brendan
rpw3@fortune.UUCP (05/19/84)
#R:wisc-cry:1297456416:fortune:28400003:000:716 fortune!rpw3 May 18 21:17:00 1984 +--------------- | ...We intend to munge it to something like EITHER | | (1) <@WISCVM.ARPA:USER@BNETHOST.BITNET> | (yes, I guess with some noise before the "<"), OR | (2) USER%BNETHOST.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA | | ...Does anybody have any opinions about this? Would anybody mind if | a source-route has an unknown domain in other than the first position? +--------------- Having just composed a long ramble in "net.mail" on quoting, I wonder why the following would not be both legal and preferred: (3) "USER@BNETHOST.BITNET"@WISCVM.ARPA Rob Warnock UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd70,hpda,harpo,sri-unix,allegra}!fortune!rpw3 DDD: (415)595-8444 USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065