usefor-article-07 May 2002

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
        abuse@baz.isp.example). The injector has taken care to record
        that it got it from dialup123.baz.isp.example. "x" is a dummy
        tail-entry, though sometimes a real userid is put there.

        The article was relayed, perhaps by UUCP, to the machine known,
        at least to its downstream, as "barbaz".

        Barbaz relayed it to old.site.example, which does not yet
        conform to this standard (hence the '!' path-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 '/' path-
        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 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 '/'
        path-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.

--- ../usefor-article-06/1_Example.out          November 2001
+++ ../usefor-article-07/1_Example.out          May 2002
@@ -1,25 +1,25 @@
 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.
+        abuse@baz.isp.example). The injector has taken care to record
+        that it got it from dialup123.baz.isp.example. "x" is a dummy
+        tail-entry, though sometimes a real userid is put there.
 
         The article was relayed, perhaps by UUCP, to the machine known,
         at least to its downstream, as "barbaz".
 
         Barbaz relayed it to old.site.example, which does not yet
-        conform to this standard (hence the '!' delimiter). So one
+        conform to this standard (hence the '!' path-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.
+        address [10.123.12.2], and claiming (by using the '/' path-
+        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
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
         "foo-server" is a locally significant name 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
+        path-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