Unless the network is lying to me again, Chris Garrigues said:
> The particular assumption that Charles didn't explain is that
> user%host2&host1 or host2|user@host1 will be relayed by host1
> to user@host2.
>
> Certainly software that does this is broken,
If anyone cares, this used to be completely legal and actually, a very
useful way of doing things. There were a number of UUCP sites that were
much quicker to address via:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
than giving the full ! path to the actual uucp site. This was not "broken",
it was "operational". I guess those days are gone, however.
Just for fun, does anyone remember the issues surrounding:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Other fun thing that nolonger works: finger user@somehost@otherhost
AlanC
--
Alan Clegg I do UNIX and Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't have any certification
I have experience
- SPAM Patches recomendations. Eduardo Augusto Alvarenga
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. Charles Cazabon
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. Keary Suska
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. q question
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. Charles Cazabon
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. q question
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. Chris Garrigues
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. Alan Clegg
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations... Charles Cazabon
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. Charles Cazabon
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. Greg White
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. Jurjen Oskam
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. q question
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. q question
- Re: SPAM Patches recomendations. q question
