Sender: |
The Revised LISTSERV Distribution List <LSTSRV-L@EB0UB011> |
Subject: |
|
From: |
Eric Thomas <ERIC@FRECP11> |
Date: |
Sun, 8 Feb 1987 12:08 SET |
Reply-To: |
The Revised LISTSERV Distribution List <LSTSRV-L@EB0UB011> |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I thought I had fixed the "user @ node" problem in 1.5g but maybe I didn't
really. You should realize that 'username <userid@node>' is a very rare form
of RFC822 address indeed. Only BITNET uses it. The general rule is
'userid@node (name)' or 'userid@node name' or '(name) userid@node (moreblurb)'
-- when it doesn't come as a X.400 + RFC822 + RFC733 mix like
'@somenode:[log in to unmask] The 'user @ node' problem
will get fixed, don't worry; however what am I to do if I get
'@WISCVM:ERIC@FRECP11'? Want me to translate it to 'ERIC@FRECP11@WISCVM'? That
reminds me of a rejection notice mailed by some UUCP mailer which said "To:
ERIC@FRECP11, eric@ERIC@FRECP11", and which got rejected by our mailer... :-)
The contents of the "From:" field are not very important. If the address is
so messed up that your average MAILER or MAIL package is unable to understand
it, there is no point in adding fifty lines of kludges for special cases to
have LISTSERV try to reformat it considering the 4-5 different mailing address
standards that are likely to have been mixed in the address :-) What is
important is that the "To:" field be ok.
I've been off for a few days and the FRORS31-FRHEC11 link is now down with
very little hope that it will come up before tomorrow. I don't know when it
came down, and I may well have missed a bunch of LSTSRV-L mail still waiting
at CEARN to be sent. So don't worry if this message comes a little out of
synch...
Eric
|
|
|