emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (11/09/89)
In article <7867@ditmela.oz> smart@ditmela.oz.au (Robert Smart) writes: >I know that names ending in .at (i.e. Austria) have caused problems >with at->@ mail rewriting rules. I have recently commented out at->@ >from our sendmail.cf for this reason. By coincedence the Australia >Telescope would like to set up their computers as machine.at.csiro.au. >The question is: is an "at" in the middle of a domain name like that >likely to cause problems with broken mailer software around the place? >I would particularly like to hear from anybody else who has a ".at." >in their domain name (or in a domain name they know about). There's an 'at.man.ac.uk' at an astronomy department in Manchster, which triggered my awareness of the problem. You might want to ask them as well. I'd discourage them (sigh) unless you're willing to send out a lot of mail on their behalf to people (like me right now, sigh) who have said broken mailers. Not much mail goes to Austria yet, and there's no ridiculously popular service or person there, so chances are this at->@ bug is still in a good many sendmail.cf's. --Ed (at this point making a patch for my sendmail.cf's....) Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (11/10/89)
In article <7867@ditmela.oz> smart@ditmela.oz.au (Robert Smart) writes: > The question is: is an "at" in the middle of a domain name like that > likely to cause problems with broken mailer software around the place? I correspond with somebody at psuvm.bitnet. I often get mail from him with headers that look like the following. Note the "AT" in the In-Reply-To: line. I doubt this would every cause any problems as all the "real" addresses are in standard @ format. ---------------- Received: from PSUVM.BITNET by uccvm.nyu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2) with BSMTP id 4110; Fri, 15 Sep 89 17:20:31 EST To: roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu In-Reply-To: roy AT alanine.phri.nyu.edu -- Fri, 15 Sep 89 09:33:14 EDT ---------------- -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network"
clarke@acheron.uucp (Ed Clarke/10240000) (11/12/89)
> In article <7867@ditmela.oz> smart@ditmela.oz.au (Robert Smart) writes: > The question is: is an "at" in the middle of a domain name like that > likely to cause problems with broken mailer software around the place? > I'm not sure, but will this fix the problem? It's from the IBM AIX sendmail.cf. This seems to imply that the 'at' must have whitespace on both sides of it to be processed into a '@'. # # Turn an "at" token into "@". # # The I macro specifies space or some equivalent char defined by the OI # config option above. # R$+$Iat$I$+ $:$1@$2 "at" -> "@" for RFC 822 -- Ed Clarke acheron!clarke
marcl@vax.SPD.3Com.Com (Marc Lavine) (11/15/89)
In article <1989Nov11.171244.28119@acheron.uucp> clarke@acheron.uucp (Ed Clarke/10240000) writes: >I'm not sure, but will this fix the problem? It's from the IBM AIX >sendmail.cf. This seems to imply that the 'at' must have whitespace >on both sides of it to be processed into a '@'. > ># ># Turn an "at" token into "@". ># ># The I macro specifies space or some equivalent char defined by the OI ># config option above. ># >R$+$Iat$I$+ $:$1@$2 "at" -> "@" for RFC 822 I believe that the proper fix for the munging of "at" to "@" is to remove all code that performs this action. RFC 822 states: C.5.5. AT-SIGN The string " at " no longer is used as an address delimiter. Only at-sign ("@") serves the function. Hence "at" is obsolete and there's no need to support it unless you have to process mail that is in RFC 733 format. The configuration files distributed with the copy of sendmail 5.6.1 that I have do not convert "at" to "@" and in my opinion, neither should yours. -- Marc Lavine Old Internet: marcl%3Com.Com@sun.com Smart: marcl@3Com.Com UUCP: ...{sun|decwrl}!3comvax!marcl
dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) (11/18/89)
In article <10116@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: :In article <7867@ditmela.oz> smart@ditmela.oz.au (Robert Smart) writes: :>I know that names ending in .at (i.e. Austria) have caused problems :>with at->@ mail rewriting rules. [text deleted] :>The question is: is an "at" in the middle of a domain name like that :>likely to cause problems with broken mailer software around the place? : :There's an 'at.man.ac.uk' at an astronomy department in Manchster, :which triggered my awareness of the problem. You might want to :ask them as well. : :I'd discourage them (sigh) unless you're willing to send out a lot of :mail on their behalf to people (like me right now, sigh) who have :said broken mailers. Not much mail goes to Austria yet, and there's :no ridiculously popular service or person there, so chances are this :at->@ bug is still in a good many sendmail.cf's. : I have also noticed problems with hosts (or subdomains) the same as the two letter national codes. Some sendmail.cf files look for these and assume the terminal part is just added junk and strip it. Not right but it evidently is out there. :--Ed (at this point making a patch for my sendmail.cf's....) : :Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept -- Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu City College of New York dan@ccnysci.uucp New York, NY 10031 dan@ccnysci.bitnet (212)690-6868
asjl@tinakori.comp.vuw.ac.nz (Andy Linton) (11/23/89)
:There's an 'at.man.ac.uk' at an astronomy department in Manchster, :which triggered my awareness of the problem. These people are really asking for trouble. In the UK, the powers that be for reasons unfathomable to me decided that host addresses should be written back to front WRT the rest of the world e.g. my address in UK format is: Andy.Linton@nz.ac.vuw.comp Sendmail and other mailers used in the UK have large chunks of their config files taken up with changing RFC822 domain based names into the UK "Grey Book" order and vice versa. You can see what's going to happen with the Manchester address. If the MTA decides it's in "Grey Book" format it should go to Austria but if the MTA decides it's RFC822 then reverse the order and send to a UK host. But wait a minute this could be a message for Austria written in RFC822 order etc etc. I know the JNT won't get their act together now on the naming scheme in the UK as they are committed to X.400 but the guys at manchester could do themselves a favour in two ways by changing their machine name. -- SENDER = Andy Linton EMAIL = Andy.Linton@comp.vuw.ac.nz PHONE = +64 4 721 000 x8978
jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) (11/24/89)
In article <1989Nov23.001545.750@kaukau.comp.vuw.ac.nz> Andy.Linton@comp.vuw.ac.nz writes: >:There's an 'at.man.ac.uk' at an astronomy department in Manchster, >:which triggered my awareness of the problem. ... Explanation of Britain's perverse use of different domain ordering ... from the rest of the world deleted. >I know the JNT won't get their act together now on the naming scheme in >the UK as they are committed to X.400 but the guys at manchester could >do themselves a favour in two ways by changing their machine name. Strictly speaking, Manchester's astronomers have registered a semi- illegal name. You are not allowed to register a domain name that is already used as a higher-level domain name. If the .at domain was registered in the British name scheme (it isn't - sigh), 'at.man.ac.uk' would be illegal. Jim
dell@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Thomas E Dell) (11/25/89)
>Strictly speaking, Manchester's astronomers have registered a semi- illegal >name. You are not allowed to register a domain name that is already used >as a higher-level domain name. If the .at domain was registered in the >British name scheme (it isn't - sigh), 'at.man.ac.uk' would be illegal. This cannot be enforced, mainly because of the .us domain. Witness the .il.us <=> .il Israel, .ca.us <=> .ca Canada, and .net.com <=> .net, among other examples. It does pose an interesting dilemma to DNS software run in the offending domains. My guess is that it will only be a problem if/when .ca.us and .ca both achieve large Internet populations. ...Tom dell@ames-nas.arpa | Abolish velcro before it's too late..
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (11/26/89)
: >Strictly speaking, Manchester's astronomers have registered a semi- illegal : >name. You are not allowed to register a domain name that is already used : >as a higher-level domain name. If the .at domain was registered in the : >British name scheme (it isn't - sigh), 'at.man.ac.uk' would be illegal. Frankly, I don't believe this. It implies that one who assigns a higher level domain name be aware of all lower level domain names -- even those not in his domain. This is inconsistent with my understanding of the rationale of the domain name system. Someone care to quote chapter and verse? --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
rayan@cs.toronto.edu (Rayan Zachariassen) (11/26/89)
>>You are not allowed to register a domain name that is already used >>as a higher-level domain name. If the .at domain was registered in the >>British name scheme (it isn't - sigh), 'at.man.ac.uk' would be illegal. >It does pose an interesting dilemma to DNS software run in the >offending domains. My guess is that it will only be a problem if/when >.ca.us and .ca both achieve large Internet populations. As I recall, it used to be DNS policy (stated in one of the early RFCs) that within a host one could default domain names by a sliding match (first common subdomain) on one's own domain name. For example, if your host was foo.sf.ca.us you could use glob.la.ca as a shorthand for glob.la.ca.us. It was always stated that all names leaving a system should be fully qualified. This policy was one of the major arguments in the CA vs. CA.US battle. About the time the ISO codes got popular and country-level domains were getting registered, Mockapetris denounced this mechanism. There is no requirement that toplevel domains don't appear at lower levels, its just good practise to avoid it when possible. The scheme lives on in the present DNS resolvers, but the sliding window matching isn't quite the same and it usually stops at the organizational boundary anyway. As for ' at ', dealing with that shouldn't be the job of an RFC822 mailer, it should be done by a protocol translation program. rayan