Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA13401; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 13:51:11 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 13:51:09 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA13379; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 13:51:07 -0400
Received: from augusta.math.psu.edu (barr@augusta.math.psu.edu [146.186.132.2]) by leibniz.math.psu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA05938 for <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 13:51:04 -0400
Received: from localhost (barr@localhost) by augusta.math.psu.edu (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA10367 for <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 13:51:03 -0400
Message-Id: <199506051751.NAA10367@augusta.math.psu.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.1 5/23/95
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: address syntax 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 05 Jun 1995 17:14:10 +0200."
             <199506051530.LAA07850@CS.UTK.EDU> 
X-Face: $+9-wYg.[->94HJ{go[7Q]E!K&hUg7ZhLyCMyq_FU*ca0GazE>^/2BKLcK0bP-'%;Nn?M<m
 c~dP_j^A?M5Jw{+a7vcMu|M-mq"V4AzKq?mPMMNP\;f8J0n\-L]ODU)YMP;-pF>+am,jlSP>1K$iz@
 %'v'FEW{@](U&Ed/}>ju3Ctlr!XwJ27Q)7h2a%"`sz;j:/3EC[mXi@*X@HE1]'ddq$ZX"ePsMyTkeg
 >zdML.SV<t=R>vX1W`adGIUD
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 13:51:02 -0400
From: Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu>

In message <199506051530.LAA07850@CS.UTK.EDU>, Eric Thomas writes:
>obsolete in application  software. Of course there are  still people with
>addresses  like  @xyz.edu:joe@mac23  (unqualified),

In such circumstances, everybody I know always writes such things as
joe%mac23@xyz.edu.  (these sorts of things appeared a lot before PSUVM
switched entirely over to using Internet From: addresses)  Since the
percent hack is superior in ease-of-reading for single-hop routes, I
think they are more popular.  Is it within the charter of drums to
legitimize the percent hack?  It certainly would fall under the grounds
of documenting current practice.  Perhaps we can say that we should
prefer sites use and support the percent hack over the @: format for
cases like this?

--Dave