🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1gg7eeINNfve@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>I can be in charge of my "little section" of the DNS?

Yes.

>Really?

You bet!

>From a UUCP site?

Uh-huh.

>Just what protocol do YOU know of that will allow a UUCP site to change the
>DNS records for its MX site? 

mail hostmaster@my.mx.dom.ain

And guess what, if you were to update your UUCP map entry, you'd have to
do something similar anyway.

>>With the UUCP maps, it's easy for
>>automated unpacking systems to break, sysadmin doesn't notice, *poof*,
>>you're using old data.
>
>With the DNS, it is easy to poke incorrect data into the database and
>*poof* EVERYONE is using bogus data. 

And as soon as the Postmaster the MX site sees the problem, he fixes
his DNS database and *poof* everyone is using correct data.

>>|You'll NEVER have the case where EVERYONE is registered in MX.
>>
>>You mean the DNS.  Why not?  That was the original design goal.
>
>For someone who is adamant that nothing in the UUCP maps could possibly
>apply to Internet sites, why this sudden compulsion that MX records
>must apply to UUCP sites?

They don't have to apply.  All Bill, Chris, me, and others are saying if
you want to continue using pathalias, fine, but don't cry when J.
Random Site on the Internet can't send mail to you, since there's no
offical system to provide Internet->UUCP gateways for all Internet members.
Understand?  The solution is to get yourself a registered DNS MX record,
and a site to MX for you.  Plain and simple.

--Dave
-- 
System Administrator, Population Research Institute    barr@pop.psu.edu
	What if there was no such thing as a hypothetical question?