🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <631@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
> 
> on a smaller network feeding from site a.  But intermediate nodes
> should NOT have to interpret the "e!f!g" part of the address.  (In
> place of square brackets, choose another symbol if necessary.)
> 
> To put it more simply: 
> Thus I should be able to say "[a$b&c!d#f]@host.DOMAIN", and let "host"
> handle the decoding of the "[a$b&c!d]" and hand the message on to the
> server for the network that uses the addres format "a$b&c!d#f".  No
> other node has any business trying to interpret "a$b&c!d#f", or
> insisting on converting it (usually incorrectly) to "b.c.d.f.a" or
> whatever, just because it wants everything to be separated by dots or
> percent signs.  Leave the interpretation of local syntax to the local
> sites!

Amen! I tried for weeks with a friend to get mail through to seismo
from Carnegie-Mellon U., and never did succeed. The network server
INSISTED on trying to send everything via ARPAnet first, which of course
didn't fly with such things as .UUCP on the end. I tried variations suggested
in the CMU networking manual, consulted with CMU computer staff, all to no
avail. The snag, you see, was my friend didn't have ARPA access, and since
the server refused to acknowledge anything else, even tho there were
Bitnet connections all over, there was no way around the problem...

Layered addressing would seem to solve this problem admirably, forcing
the server to interpret the bitnet address first instead of translating
the intermediate addresses and going with those...

On the other hand, I had no problem mailing from our site to CMU via UUCP. :-)
-- 
Paul "Corwin" Frommeyer        "Experience is no substitute for competence."
UUCP: 
	{seismo,ihnp4}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!corwin