🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <14481@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>>I realize having non-unique uucp node names is a problem and
>>>everything should be domainized but there ARE duplicates and
>>>autorouting uucp ! format addresses is a good way to mess things up,
>>>with little benefit.

In article <1300@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> (George Robbins) writes:
>>True, but this already a fatal problem in the real world.  There are
>>unmarked anti-social routers out there that are diverting any external
>>mail to your neptune to the other...

In article <14511@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>You make it sound as though "well, people are doing this (wrong) thing
>already, so what are you complaining about?"

This started when Phil mentioned that both AMD and AT&T have a
machine named neptune.  Actually, there's only a name conflict if you
call both machines neptune.  AMD's machine is neptune.AMD.COM (now
that Phil has installed smail), and AT&T's machine is
neptune.foo.bar.bletch.ATT.COM.  People with vanilla mailers can
mail to neptune.AMD.COM by just mailing to ...!amdcad!neptune.AMD.COM!user.
Voila, the unique UUCP name problem is gone, because of the magic of smail.  

On the other hand, people whose mailers reroute my mail through ihnp4 when
I've specified a perfectly valid path that avoids it should be shot.
Unlike Phil, though, I'm perfectly happy if a router converts an
invalid path into a valid one and makes my mail reach its
destination.

-- 
- Joe Buck 	{hplabs,ihnp4,sun,ames}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck	HASA (A,S)
  Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California