🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <V1L9VB3w165w@willard.UUCP> dawson@willard.UUCP (Willard Dawson) writes:
>Hmmm... some site would need to advertise itself as a top-level server
>for .UUCP?  Not likely, not for free?  Or is it really all that big a
>deal?  Has any site actually ~tried~ it, to show what the results would
>be?

It wouldn't have much effect unless it was one of the root nameservers.

>For example, suppose UUNET declared itself the top-level server (and,
>thus, only server, as .UUCP is not sub-domain-ized <ick>) for .UUCP.
>If the MX record for willard.UUCP were to indicate a path of
>gatech.edu!vdbsan!willard!%s, or something similar, would that not still
>route mail in the exact same way that UUNET would route mail otherwise?

You're thinking UUCP again, Willard.  We're not talking hops here.  MX's
point to a single host, not a list of hops.  It would be up to the object
of the MX to provide the rest of the hop information.

>Mail would not need to be sent to UUNET in order to see that the route
>to willard.UUCP would best be through the indicated path.  So, a tighter
>link between MX/pathalias would not be necessarily a bad thing, unless
>the resulting load on the system acting as the nameserver were such that
>it would in fact be inpractical to implement.
>
>What have I overlooked?

The fact that you'd have to reconfigure the majority of mailers out there
in order for it to work  (Remove CPUUCP from the sendmail.cf) while at
the same time add every single host in pathalias database into a .uucp
DNS domain.  You can't have a mix of the two systems.  Either the mailer
will trust DNS for an MX record, or use pathalias. (or punt the mail to
a host that does do pathalias)  The mailer can't do both.  (Unless you
massage the maps periodically to remove UUCP hosts that have DNS records,
and change your mailer around to use pathalias first, then DNS, which
would be icky.)

--Dave
-- 
System Administrator, Population Research Institute    barr@pop.psu.edu
End of article 2565 (of 2565)--what next? [npq]