usenet@egsner.cirr.com (Eric Schnoebelen) (10/05/89)
Hello All! Before I go digging into the code myself, and reinventing the wheel, does anyone know of, or have done, a set of patches for smail 2.5, to make it understand the %-@ hierarchy? ( You know, <user>%<site>@<site>, eg blah%bar@foo ) If anyone has such patches, please send a message. Otherwise, I'll dig in and make the patches myself, and I'll post them here.. Thanks, Eric
zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) (10/06/89)
All you really want to do is have smail change % to @ if there is no ! or
@ present (ie, it looks like a local address).
Just put this at the beginning and the end of resolve().
if (strchr(address,'!') == NULL
&& strchr(address,'@') == NULL
&& (ptr = strrchr(address,'%'))) *ptr = '@';
--
Branch Technology | zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us
| Ann Arbor, MIagnew@trwrc.RC.TRW.COM (Robert A. Agnew) (10/10/89)
In article <9672@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes: > >All you really want to do is have smail change % to @ if there is no ! or >@ present (ie, it looks like a local address). > Are you sure? According to RFC-822, % has a higher precedence than @. Don't we have to scan context in order to determine the routing?
lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (10/10/89)
RFC 822 does not mention %. See RFC 1123 for a discussion of the '% hack'. -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
argv%turnpike@Sun.COM (Dan Heller) (10/11/89)
In article <Oct.9.13.58.43.1989.23064@NET.BIO.NET> lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) writes: > RFC 822 does not mention %. See RFC 1123 for a discussion of the > '% hack'. Awww, come on... don't leave 'em hanging. You should at least summarize.. % has lower precedence than @, but is evaluated left to right like @. It's precedence is equal to !. the following are "similar" addresses: user%addr1@addr2 addr1!user@addr2 addr2!addr1!user In all cases, the mail goes thru addr2 first, then to addr1, then to the user. dan <island!argv@sun.com> ----- My postings reflect my opinion only -- not the opinion of any company.
zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) (10/11/89)
>Are you sure? According to RFC-822, % has a higher precedence than @. Don't >we have to scan context in order to determine the routing? No rfc (822 included) says that % has higher precedence that @. It doesn't. -- Branch Technology | zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us | Ann Arbor, MI
jwc@unify.UUCP (J. William Claypool) (10/12/89)
In article <126099@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> argv@sun.UUCP (Dan Heller) writes: >Awww, come on... don't leave 'em hanging. You should at least summarize.. >% has lower precedence than @, but is evaluated left to right like @. >It's precedence is equal to !. ^^^^^ Seems to me that % should have LOWER precedence than !. > >the following are "similar" addresses: > > user%addr1@addr2 > addr1!user@addr2 > addr2!addr1!user How about: addr2!user%addr1 shouldn't this be routed the same? >In all cases, the mail goes thru addr2 first, then to addr1, then to the user. -- Bill Claypool W. (916) 920-9092 |I know what I know if you know what I mean jwc@unify.UUCP H. (916) 381-4205 |------------------------------------------ ...!{csusac,pyramid}!unify!jwc | SCCA SFR Solo II 74 es 1984 CRX 1.5
toddp@hp-ptp.HP.COM (Todd_Poynor) (10/12/89)
>% has lower precedence than @, but is evaluated left to right like @. >It's precedence is equal to !. Not quite -- "%" is evaluated right-to-left, as per the example. There should only be one "@" in the address, since source routing using route-address syntax is discouraged (and doesn't work on most implementations anyway). And the % precedence is recommended to be lower than any other operator, including "!". All this from section 5.2.16 on page 57. ^todd "You want a standard? Here's several, you can take your pick."
pcf@galadriel.bt.co.uk (Pete French) (10/12/89)
From article <126099@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, by argv%turnpike@Sun.COM (Dan Heller): > the following are "similar" addresses: > > user%addr1@addr2 > addr1!user@addr2 > addr2!addr1!user > > In all cases, the mail goes thru addr2 first, then to addr1, then to the user. This is not necessarily true in the case of the second one. Another BT site I used to work on ran bog-standard V7 mail - and as such would not understand @ signs. the syntax "addr1!user@addr2" would send the string "user@addr2" to machine "addr1" over a uucp link. This is still the only way we have of getting mail out of the system - routing via !'s to a machine that can translate the @ signs for us. This is not the first time I have seen this either. -Pete. PS: If anyone can tell me where to get a copy of a mailer that will translate the @ signs properly then let me know would you.... -- -Pete French. | "Love is the corpse, British Telecom Research Labs. | That crawls on dreams, Martlesham Heath, East Anglia. | Rips them apart, All my own thoughts (of course) | And tears them to shreds" - SOM