🚀 go-pugleaf

> I forgot one more reason autorouting uucp ! format paths is bad:
> Such addresses are path relative. That is, decwrl!amdcad!neptune is
> different from ihnp4!neptune. 
> ... 
> I realize having non-unique uucp node names is a problem and
> everything should be domainized ...

Actually, while this is a problem for the global email system, it
is (from a user's viewpoint) one of the great advantages of uucp
mail.  

Why?  Well, because we don't need any kind of central Authority
to organize a little uucp exchange.  If our company has a cluster 
of Unix boxes, we can connect them together with null-modem links,
give each one a nodename unique within the cluster, and copy files
to our hearts' content.  This takes maybe 10 minutes to an hour.
We don't first have to spend weeks or months getting names and/or 
network addresses from some distant authority (which all too often 
means convincing the authority that we need to do what we're doing).

Granted, as soon as we make a uucp link out to the external world, 
and send email across it, there is a problem.  But at least we can 
put off burning that bridge until we come to it.  If all we need 
is a temporary link to copy a few megabytes of files, we can do it 
and get on with the job without a lot of bureaucratic hassles.

Uucp is, after all, used for a lot more than email.  Even with
intelligent mail routers installed everywhere (which is still
not too close to realization), people would still be making
little, temporary links and running uucp across it for purposes
like downloading binaries and uuxing them.  Requiring that users
first spend several orders of magnitude more time consulting a
name authority is not realistic.

-- 
	John M Chambers			Phone: 617/364-2000x7304
Email: ...{adelie,bu-cs,harvax,inmet,mcsbos,mit-eddie,mot[bos]}!cdx39!{jc,news,root,usenet,uucp}
Smail: Codex Corporation; Mailstop C1-30; 20 Cabot Blvd; Mansfield MA 02048-1193
Clever-Saying: If we can't fix it, it ain't broke.