🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1894@prune.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes:

   I think Paul Vixie first wrote this:    
   >The Moral: don't short-circuit.

   Then I replied:
    >   Wrong.  The Moral:  don't put full domain names into email paths if
    >   they're going through the Internet and you don't want them short-circuited.
    >   Hack the path to be something like
    >   	noe!packet_radio!kg6kf_ampr_org!callsign!callsign

   Then Piercarlo Grandi replied;
    >Ugh! Ugh! Pain... Fro two reasons: this is a horrible hack, and, and, let me
    >repeat my NHO, this is Internet parochialism. There is nobody that has ever
    >said that domain names are restricted to the Internet.

   I don't have a problem with Piercarlo's point.

   However, people who read my message CAREFULLY will not that I was only
   talking about the Internet.  I wasn't talking about anyone else.

Ok, Ok. To excuse my reading of your comments, that evidently has
not been careful enough, the whole discussion was about
gatewaying and routing within and out the internet..., i.e. a non
Internet only discussion. As to routing within the internet, it
is mostly a non issue. The internet has its own standards,
central administration, etc... Too easy! (this may well be the
understatement of the week :->)

   I don't care about anyone else.

But this *is* indeed Internet parochialism :->. On the other hand
you admit you don't have a problem with my remark to this effect,
so, end of discussion? :-> (a fortiori, as I am not on the internet? :->)

   Please re-read my first quoted sentence again.

   If you take mail out of the Internet via an MX record, and you then
   inject it back into the Internet with a domain name, you're asking for
   trouble.

We have no argument here :-> :-> :->.
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk