🚀 go-pugleaf

[notice followup]
sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:

> In article <2fg1Hb16rb@atlantis.psu.edu> barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr) writes
> :
>>In article <H9TkwB1w165w@willard.UUCP> dawson@willard.UUCP (Willard Dawson) 
> writes:
> 
>>inherently a multi-platform, multi-transport task, providing a common
>>routing mechanism for everyone is quite difficult.
> 
>>       Assume for a second that every UUCP-only site out there had a
>>registered MX.  What sort of other routing concerns are there?
> 
> Not too many. And you don't need MX records for all uucp sites. For example
> van-bc, aka wimsey.com forwards mail to about 80 UUCP sites. About a dozen
> of those have their own FQDN's with an MX record pointing to wimsey.com. But
> the rest just use XXXX.wimsey.com where XXXX is their uucp node name. There
> is one MX record for wimsey.com which catches all of these.

One problem though if a uucp node is going to be know at all by a short
node name then they need to register in the maps even if they are a
leaf, if you are going to list them in your map entry, because it screws
up the maps.  Notice the bang path listed in my signature, but the system
I connect to is in Fort Worth, Texas not Vancover, British Columbia.


-- 
Internet: rick@ricksys.lonestar.org,      bo836@cleveland.freenet.edu
UUCP: ...!rwsys!ricksys!rick,   {backbones}!ricksys.lonestar.org!rick
BITNET: bo836%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm  Fidonet: Richard McCombs @ 1:385/6