🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KARL.90Dec30015529@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes:
>mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM writes:
>   How's about the writing of headers like
>       Received: from foo.UUCP by nerf.herd.edu (5.61/1.292) with UUCP
>   when foo was really foo.bar.com. And said so. And the transport was UUCP.
>
>At the level of UUCP transport, a machine identifies itself with a
>one-word hostname.  That is, UUCP host "foo" did not in fact identify
>itself _during_rmail_execution_ as "foo.bar.com," but rather as just
>plain old "foo."  ...
>           At that level, a Received: showing "foo.UUCP" is right.

But why tack on the content free ".UUCP" pseudo-domain?  Why shouldn't
it simply say

	Received: from foo by nerf.herd.edu (5.61/1.292) with UUCP

I confess to being somewhat irked at the MEANINGLESS proliferation of
the UUCP pseudo-domain all over the place.  It was never more than a
bit of routing sleight-of-hand for Internet purposes, and shouldn't be
used where it doesn't apply.  (And DEFINITELY not where a site isn't
actually registered in the Zone.)

-- 
What luck for rulers that men   []+   Tom Neff
do not think. -- A. Hitler      +[]   tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM