🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CKD.90Dec15182540@bucsd.bu.edu> ckd@cs.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) writes:
>les> I guess so.  I thought they [MX records] were mail addresses.

>Nope.  The rarely-seen "MB" or "MG" records, but not MX.  MX means "if
>you have mail for xyz.com, send it to foo.bar.net, they know how to
>handle it from there."

OK, I meant "mail-forwarding" or "mail-handling"..

>les> OK, then it still makes sense for an internet-uucp (or anything else)
>les> gateway to establish a domain name just for the purpose of controlling
>les> the namespace at the same point as the physical links.

>Why?  The domain *servers* for a domain do not have to be within that
>domain.

For convienience mostly.  If the gateway machine controls a domain namespace
and has a wild-card MX for it, then there is no administrative overhead
involved in adding or deleting machines under that domain.  That is, the
same person who sets up the uucp login info can set up subdomain name (and
all at the same time).  Likewise, the uucp sites with appropriate software
could add their own subdomains or hide a few neighbors under their name 
without bothering anyone else.

>les> With a wild-card MX pointing to the forwarder, it should be
>les> possible to add any number of addressable off-net machines without
>les> changing anything but the forwarder's tables.  The value of this is
>les> obvious within organizations, but not everyone "has" an
>les> organization.

>Which is what foo.city.st.us is for.

Conceptually perhaps but in practice subdomains under .us are not allowed
to set up additional subdomains without registering them with the top
level.  Also, you might want multiple machines with no geographical relationship
to have the same domain - or you might have a laptop with no fixed location.

>People don't *assume* that it's your city's fault you have access to the
>postal service; after all, the USPS is required to mail your letters
>(assuming they're legal mail, i.e. not bombs or whatever).
>However, if your stuff goes out with headers of something like
>"les@chinet.uucp.very-large-u.edu," and I think you're a complete idiot
>who shouldn't be allowed near any computer more powerful than an abacus,
>who am I likely to write to?
>"postmaster@bigsite.very-large-u.edu."

Does that mean that in a mail message from les@fb.com the .com domain is
somehow responsible for everything I might say? Or is there some magic
about the domain levels.

Anyway we are getting sidetracked here.  The main thing that I think
needs to be addressed is the representation of uucp names on the internet.

Consider the advice that is always seen to "get a domain name".  In what
way would making every existing uucp site get an official domain name
be different than a mechanical translation of the existing maps other
than the massive waste of manpower and time waiting for the names to be
approved and the corresponding doubling of the map size on the uucp side.
Is the name service really prepared for that many names to added without
any structure? 

If the gateway machines each add one domain name to encompass the otherwise
unorganized uucp (or whatever) machines that they handle, it would make
everything else fall into place.  And the gateways would then have a
way to invert the mappings of the names between the internet and the
preferred off-net forms for the cases where that is necessary or desirable.
For sites that have some other reason to obtain their own name, this wouldn't
have any effect.

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us