INTERNET-DRAFT Charles H. Lindsey
Usenet Format Working Group University of Manchester
April 2001
5.6.6. Example
Path: foo.isp.example/
.foo-server/bar.isp.example?10.123.12.2/old.site.example!
barbaz/baz.isp.example%dialup123.baz.isp.example!x
NOTE: That article was injected into the news stream by
baz.isp.example (complaints may be addressed to
usenet@baz.isp.example). The injector has taken care to record
that it got it from dialup123.baz.isp.example. "x" is the
default tail entry, though sometimes a real userid is put there.
The article was relayed, perhaps by UUCP, to the machine known
in the UUCP maps database as "barbaz".
Barbaz relayed it to old.site.example, which does not yet
conform to this standard (hence the '!' delimiter). So one
cannot be sure that it really came from barbaz.
Old.site.example relayed it to a site claiming to have the IP
address [10.123.12.2], and claiming (by using the '/' delimiter)
to have verified that it came from old.site.example.
[10.123.12.2] relayed it to ".foo-server" which, not being
convinced that it truly came from [10.123.12.2], did a reverse
lookup on the actual source and concluded it was known as
bar.isp.example (that is not to say that [10.123.12.2] was not a
correct IP address for bar.isp.example, but simply that that
connection could not be substantiated by .foo-server). Observe
that .foo-server has now added two entries to the Path.
".foo-server" is a locally significant name (observe the
presence of the '.') within the complex site of many machines
run by foo.isp.example, so the latter should have no problem
recognizing .foo-server and using a '/' delimiter. Presumably
foo.isp.example then delivered the article to its direct
clients.
It appears that foo.isp.example and old.site.example decided to
fold the line, on the grounds that it seemed to be getting a
little too long.
[Previous Up Next]
See also previous draft (03): 5.6.6. Example
See also previous draft (02):
See also previous draft (son-of-1036):
See also previous draft (rfc-1036):