Re: Source Routes

Ned Freed <NED@innosoft.com> Thu, 15 February 1996 01:38 UTC

Message-Id: <01I17MQDYN6M9QV4IX@INNOSOFT.COM>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 17:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Ned Freed <NED@innosoft.com>
To: "Gellens, Randall MV" <RGellens@po1.mv.unisys.com>
Cc: IETF SMTP <ietf-smtp@list.cren.net>
Subject: Re: Source Routes
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:43:00 -0800 (PST)" <3122812D@po0.mv.unisys.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

> Are source route paths still used?  After reading the RFCs and IDs,
> my impression is that explicit paths in either MAIL FROM or RCPT TO
> can be ignored by the SMTP server.  The server can simply use the
> local part and domain name.

Yes, they are still used, although rarely. They should not be, but they are.

> Is this correct?

Yes, this is also correct. The intent as I understand it in RFC1123 was to
continue to require support for source route address format but deprecate the
functionality it implies.

> It seems much more clear that this is the case
> for RCPT TO than for MAIL FROM.  I'd like it to be equally true for
> MAIL FROM, but I want to make sure I'm correct and not reading what
> I want into what it says.

Sounds to me like your reading is correct.

> Do SMTP clients (and servers acting as clients) send explicit
> routes (for MAIL FROM or RCPT TO) much these days?  Do servers
> need to honor them?

No and no. The former because that's the way it is, the latter because
the specifications specifically let agents ignore source routes.

				Ned

Source Routes Gellens, Randall MV
Re: Source Routes Ned Freed