Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id RAA12412; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:41:34 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:41:12 -0500
Received: from po10.andrew.cmu.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id RAA12374; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:41:09 -0500
Received: (from postman@localhost) by po10.andrew.cmu.edu (8.7.5/8.7.1) id RAA00909 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:41:06 -0500
Received: via switchmail; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:41:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/testq0/QF.4lHSNZi00WBw40ZX5Y>;
          Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:40:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr7/jgm/.Outgoing/QF.klHSNY:00WBwQ12LAG>;
          Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:40:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.14.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c.411
          via MS.5.6.hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c_411;
          Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:40:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <UlHSNTO00WBwE12L1D@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:40:31 -0500 (EST)
From: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: 821 vs 822 quoting
In-Reply-To: <199603150221.VAA17872@CS.UTK.EDU>
References: <199603150221.VAA17872@CS.UTK.EDU>

Eric Thomas <ERIC@VM.SE.LSOFT.COM> writes:
> I  don't understand.  What's  wrong with  the  simple, straightforward  \
> quoting?

It's not permitted in 822.  In cases where 821-obtained addresses
get placed in 822 headers (Received: for, Return-Path:), the MTA has
to (know to) convert the address into a legal 822 form.

The fact that there are quoting mechanisms that exist in 821 but not
in 822 and vice versa causes confusion.  The proposed fix is to
discourage and/or eliminate use of those quoting mechanisms that do
not exist in both domains.

-- 
_.John G. Myers		Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU
			LoseNet:  ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up