dnb@fltk.UUCP (David Buonomo) (01/05/90)
Could anybody point me in the direction of information reguarding converting an Internet address such as: noreiga@jail.usa.gov into a UUCP address like: uunet!jail!noreiga I've read the mailaddr man page but have found little in books/tutorials. Is there a "definitive reference" that discusses how to do the conversion. Sorry if this has been addressed before, I'm new to talking over the net. Thanks in advance. David Buonomo FileTek Rockville, Maryland
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/06/90)
In article <325@fltk.UUCP> dnb@fltk.UUCP (David Buonomo) writes:
: Could anybody point me in the direction of information reguarding converting
: an Internet address such as:
:
: noreiga@jail.usa.gov
:
: into a UUCP address like:
:
: uunet!jail!noreiga
:
: I've read the mailaddr man page but have found little in books/tutorials.
: Is there a "definitive reference" that discusses how to do the conversion.
I don't have time for a long reply (dinner calls!) but the short
answer is, if you can send mail to uunet, mail to
uunet!jail.usa.gov!noreiga should do the trick.
: Sorry if this has been addressed before, I'm new to talking over the net.
No problem. That's what this newsgroup is for.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.combrnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (01/07/90)
In article <325@fltk.UUCP> dnb@fltk.UUCP (David Buonomo) writes: > an Internet address such as: > noreiga@jail.usa.gov > into a UUCP address like: > uunet!jail!noreiga The first host address, jail.usa.gov, is a dotted address or a domain address. It may not represent an Internet address like 128.66.3.2; it could instead be a UUCP bang-path address. The safest way to get mail to jail.usa.gov is to route it through uunet or another Internet site that understands the UUCP map. (Try noriega%jail.usa.gov@uunet.uu.net with most mailers.) Mail routing can be very complex. ---Dan
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (01/09/90)
She said that he said that she said that brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) said:
-In article <325@fltk.UUCP> dnb@fltk.UUCP (David Buonomo) writes:
-> an Internet address such as:
-> noreiga@jail.usa.gov
-> into a UUCP address like:
-> uunet!jail!noreiga
-
-The first host address, jail.usa.gov, is a dotted address or a domain
-address. It may not represent an Internet address like 128.66.3.2; it
-could instead be a UUCP bang-path address. The safest way to get mail
-to jail.usa.gov is to route it through uunet or another Internet site
-that understands the UUCP map. (Try noriega%jail.usa.gov@uunet.uu.net
-with most mailers.) Mail routing can be very complex.
Dan is both right and wrong. the "jail.usa.gov" is a domain address.
And, yes, mail routing can be very complex. But depending on the
mailer you use, the example he gives may not work.
I suggest using "<site>!jail.usa.gov!noreiga", where site can be uunet,
but can also be most any other machine that communicates via the internet.
There are two RFC's on mail routing; unfortunately I can't remember the
numbers, but I'd only recommend looking these up if you're *really*
interested in the mechanics of routing algebra's (!'s before .'s and equal
to @'s, etc).
Hope this helps.
--
David Bedno aka davidbe@sco.COM: Speaking from but not for SCO.
"horses make me neurotic about my penis size, so i generally
don't hang around them." - mikeha@sco.COMnor1675@dsac.dla.mil (Michael Figg) (01/13/90)
In article <1160@scorn.sco.COM>, davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: > > -that understands the UUCP map. (Try noriega%jail.usa.gov@uunet.uu.net > -with most mailers.) Mail routing can be very complex. > What does the '%' do in an address like this? Is it saying noriega at jail.usu.gov, which is a system that uunet.uu.net knows about? Thanks, MSF -- "Could we be the bellwether | Michael Figg DSAC-FSD of major societal shifts?" | DLA Systems Automation Center - Columbus,Oh mfigg@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil
taxman@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu (01/14/90)
>> -that understands the UUCP map. (Try noriega%jail.usa.gov@uunet.uu.net >> -with most mailers.) Mail routing can be very complex. >> > > What does the '%' do in an address like this? Is it saying noriega at > jail.usu.gov, which is a system that uunet.uu.net knows about? > > Thanks, > MSF > in most, if not all mailers you cant use @ twice in one address. The % sign serves the same purpose as @. ie taxman%drycas.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu would be read as user taxman at BITnetnode drycas via cunyvm.cuny.edu. hope that helps ________________________________________________________________________________ Mike Wommack Inet: taxman@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu BITnet: taxman@drycas UUCP: uunet!drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu!taxman CCNet: DRYCAS::TAXMAN _______________________________________________________________________________
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (01/15/90)
In article <1644@dsac.dla.mil> nor1675@dsac.dla.mil (Michael Figg) writes: |In article <1160@scorn.sco.COM>, davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: |> |> -that understands the UUCP map. (Try noriega%jail.usa.gov@uunet.uu.net |> -with most mailers.) Mail routing can be very complex. |> | |What does the '%' do in an address like this? Is it saying noriega at |jail.usu.gov, which is a system that uunet.uu.net knows about? The rules say that there can be only one "@" in an address, since it is supposed to be a name and not a route. The "%" was invented as a kluge to add some routing like "!" in UUCP, and is mostly equivalent to "@" in syntax. The problem is that once "%" gets into the UUCP domain, many mailers don't recognize it as a special character - 'smail' is a typical example. An address "you%there@becker.UUCP" is presumably intended to go to UUCP site "becker" who will then figure out "you%there" and send to user "you" at site "there", as if "you@there" had been specified from there. Until quite recently, when I put in a patch to 'smail', such mail would be delivered to local user "you%there" on "becker" - 'smail', finding no such user, would bounce the message. The other problem is that there is no established precedence in operators between "@" and "!". "uunet!bdb@becker" is subject to interpretation as "becker!uunet!bdb" or "uunet!becker!bdb", when moved into the UUCP domain. So in order to address this site you might need to try "becker!bdb@uunet" to get there instead, depending on local or intermediate mailer implementations. For 'smail', the second form turns out to be the correct one. When "%" is interpreted as "@", the same problems arise. They are slightly simpler due to the fact that "%" is not official, so the default behavior of 'smail' above is technically correct, if unforgiving. If "%" is interpreted, it is done last, after all other mistakes are made (if any), so it does have an implied precedence of a sort. This is lotsa fun, but not necessarily productive when you want to get mail from one network to another - "%" can help, but like "!", you end up needing to know local and intermediate conditions in order to use it effectively. I've probably said things which others will have differing opinions on - if so, the ensuing brouhaha will likely be educational, if things are working as they should... Cheers, -- ,,,, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \$$/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/c/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _/ >_ "Money is the root of all money" - Adam
wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (Bill Wisner) (01/22/90)
taxman@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes: >in most, if not all mailers you cant use @ twice in one address. Using more than one at sign in an address is Officially Frowned Upon and, in fact, if you do so, the Internet Protocol Police will hunt you down and do you grievous bodily harm. We really don't want to see this happen, so please, just follow the rules. w.
peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) (01/23/90)
In article <WISNER.90Jan21131413@hayes.fai.alaska.edu> wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (Bill Wisner) writes: >Using more than one at sign in an address is Officially Frowned Upon >and, in fact, if you do so, the Internet Protocol Police will hunt you >down and do you grievous bodily harm. We really don't want to see this >happen, so please, just follow the rules. An address of the form <@host1,@host2:person@host3> (where host1/2/3 are in domain form) is legal, although I've found that a lot of mailers will kindly re-write that for you, sometimes into a form that the receiving system won't accept...(i.e. the above might be translated into person%host3%host2@host1, but any of the hosts in the route may not like that format. -- Steve Peltz (almost) CFI-G "Monticello traffic, Glider 949 landing 18, full stop"
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (01/23/90)
In article <WISNER.90Jan21131413@hayes.fai.alaska.edu> wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (Bill Wisner) writes: >Using more than one at sign in an address is Officially Frowned Upon >and, in fact, if you do so, the Internet Protocol Police will hunt you >down and do you grievous bodily harm. While it's now officially frowned upon, the IPP will *not* do you grievous bodily harm if you do it responsibly. Let's suppose you have an address that doesn't resolve--like HAYES.FAI.ALASKA.EDU for example. (nslookup says the only valid *.fai.alaska.edu are acad3, barney, fred, sxclm, sxjlh, sxtjh, systems, systems1, ua-gw, and ua-gw2.) I might try @acad3.fai.alaska.edu:wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu in the hope that acad3 runs a hacked mail system that intercepts what appears to be a bogus address. And yes, there's more than one @ in there. (Bill, why do your articles look like NNTP forgeries?) -=EPS=-
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (01/24/90)
She said that he said that she said that eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) said:
-In article <WISNER.90Jan21131413@hayes.fai.alaska.edu>
- wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (Bill Wisner) writes:
->Using more than one at sign in an address is Officially Frowned Upon
-
-While it's now officially frowned upon, the IPP will *not* do you
-grievous bodily harm if you do it responsibly. Let's suppose you
-have an address that doesn't resolve--like HAYES.FAI.ALASKA.EDU
-for example. (nslookup says the only valid *.fai.alaska.edu are
-acad3, barney, fred, sxclm, sxjlh, sxtjh, systems, systems1,
-ua-gw, and ua-gw2.) I might try
- @acad3.fai.alaska.edu:wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu
-in the hope that acad3 runs a hacked mail system that intercepts
-what appears to be a bogus address. And yes, there's more than
-one @ in there.
Yeah, but they *should* do you harm. How can you be sure that the sites
that will route your mail will be hacked appropriately.
To get mail to Bill without attracting the attention of the IPP, mail to:
acad3.fai.alaska.edu!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!wisner
(sending directly to hayes would probably work, as nslookup may not be
completely up to date. it would get to fai, and locally get sent to
the proper place.)
Both RFC's (at least the latest one) say that you can use full domain names
as intermediate routers. You need never use an @ sign again, actually.
This is probably the preferred method for people who live on UUCP nodes,
and don't have nslookup.
not a mail address guru
but i play one at work
--
David Bedno aka davidbe@sco.COM: Speaking from but not for SCO.
"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (01/24/90)
In article <1670@scorn.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: >To get mail to Bill without attracting the attention of the IPP, mail to: >acad3.fai.alaska.edu!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!wisner That will almost certainly bounce when it gets to acad3, as it will have been rewritten as hayes.fai.alaska.edu!wisner@acad3.fai.alaska.edu and I don't expect what looks like a VAX running TWG to accept the left hand side of that. *NO* Internet site need understand bang paths. >(sending directly to hayes would probably work, as nslookup may not be >completely up to date. it would get to fai, and locally get sent to >the proper place.) Sorry, that's not how it works. If nslookup can't find it, nothing else has a prayer. Messages do not get sent to fai first (though fai.alaska.edu happens to be valid, there's no no "requirement" for a host to "be its domain"). In any case, I received mail from Bill saying that (1) the DNS information for his machine is screwed up, and he's been trying to get the appropriate administrators to fix this and (2) please not to use acad3 as a relay because it is screwed up even more. What he didn't send me was a domain literal, which could work around the lack of name service. I trust that the problems are being attended to. -=EPS=-