robin@csuchico.edu (Robin Goldstone) (10/18/90)
I am trying to send a message to someone@applelink.apple.com. This host has no TYPE A record, only an MX record. My mailer currently cannot resolve MX records. As a workaround, I thought I would just send to someone%applelink.apple.com@apple.com. It is my (limited) understanding that addresses are parsed from right to left, so this message would be sent to apple.com, who would then be able to forward it to applelink.apple.com. Some questions: 1) is the syntax of the address I am trying to use valid? 2) am I violating any network rules by routing my message through another host? 3) should this message be getting delivered? I have sent several test messages that have disappeared into a black hole... Thanks in advance for any help you can provide! Robin Goldstone, Systems Software Specialist California State University, Chico Computing Services robin@csuchico.edu
craig@bbn.com (Craig Partridge) (10/19/90)
In article <1990Oct18.164200.5699@ecst.csuchico.edu> robin@csuchico.edu (Robin Goldstone) writes: >... As a workaround, I thought I would just >send to someone%applelink.apple.com@apple.com. It is my (limited) >understanding that addresses are parsed from right to left, so this >message would be sent to apple.com, who would then be able to forward >it to applelink.apple.com. >1) is the syntax of the address I am trying to use valid? Yes the syntax is correct. >2) am I violating any network rules by routing my message through >another host? No, though doing this sort of thing frequently (like sending all your mail via another system because your system doesn't support MX) is considered rude. >3) should this message be getting delivered? Yes. Apple.com is the MX for applelink.apple.com, so it should accept mail for applelink.apple.com. Note that if Apple.com was not the MX for applelink.apple.com, then all bets are off. You should not assume that via j random host using the %-hack is safe or reasonable. You mention your mail is going into a black hole, that's definitely a problem. Mail should not vanish without a trace... Craig
oberman@rogue.llnl.gov (10/20/90)
In article <1990Oct18.164200.5699@ecst.csuchico.edu>, robin@csuchico.edu (Robin Goldstone) writes: > I am trying to send a message to someone@applelink.apple.com. This > host has no TYPE A record, only an MX record. My mailer currently > cannot resolve MX records. As a workaround, I thought I would just > send to someone%applelink.apple.com@apple.com. It is my (limited) > understanding that addresses are parsed from right to left, so this > message would be sent to apple.com, who would then be able to forward > it to applelink.apple.com. > > Some questions: > 1) is the syntax of the address I am trying to use valid? > 2) am I violating any network rules by routing my message through > another host? > 3) should this message be getting delivered? > I have sent several test messages that have disappeared into a black hole... The use of the '%' hack is not a part of any standard. But it usually works. So the syntax of the address is probably OK. APPLE.COM is the mail exchanger for APPLE and APPLELINK, so it SHOULD work, but only by convention. It does not violate any "rules", such as they aren't. But this type of routing is quite undesireable--but very common. Mail to APPLELINK is staged on APPLE.COM for delivery, so maybe the route between APPLELINK and APPLE is down. You should really try to get a mailer that handles MX records some day. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.
tim@ggumby.cs.caltech.edu (Timothy L. Kay) (10/21/90)
oberman@rogue.llnl.gov writes: >You should really try to get a mailer that handles MX records some day. Fine, but how do we get Silicon Graphics to provide a mailer that supports MX records? Is there a way of putting pressure on them, such as being able to claim that their machines violate internet standards or somesuch? Tim
craig@bbn.com (Craig Partridge) (10/22/90)
In article <tim.656457948@ggumby> tim@ggumby.cs.caltech.edu (Timothy L. Kay) writes: >Fine, but how do we get Silicon Graphics to provide a mailer that supports >MX records? Is there a way of putting pressure on them, such as being able >to claim that their machines violate internet standards or somesuch? Any host which does not support MX RR's in the mailer is not Host Requirements conformant. See page 65 of RFC 1123.
barns@GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG (10/26/90)
Ouch, Craig, I hope I didn't hear you say that every host X that is an MX for another host Y is required to support the percent hack, that is, treat user%Y@X equivalently to user@Y? It works in most places, probably, but I don't remember this ever being raised as even a proposed requirement... Bill Barns / MITRE-Washington / barns@gateway.mitre.org
craig@NNSC.NSF.NET (Craig Partridge) (10/26/90)
> Ouch, Craig, I hope I didn't hear you say that every host X that is > an MX for another host Y is required to support the percent hack, > that is, treat user%Y@X equivalently to user@Y? RFC 1123 doesn't explicitly require it, but it suggests that support for the %-hack is expected (the discussion in Section 5.2.16 being my primary source). Craig
imp@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Warner Losh) (10/29/90)
In article <9010270002.AA00258@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> craig@NNSC.NSF.NET (Craig Partridge) writes: >RFC 1123 doesn't explicitly require it, but it suggests that support >for the %-hack is expected (the discussion in Section 5.2.16 being >my primary source). However, in existing practice there is at least one mailer that uses the % for a gateway between internet and decnet. The address of the form "imp%node.decnet@twg.com" will cause mail to be sent to NODE::IMP from the internet host TWG.COM. This being the case, mail sending programs should not assume that <a%b@c> is the same as "<@c:a@b>". Warner -- Warner Losh imp@Solbourne.COM How does someone declare moral bankruptcy?