🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <559@smidefix.liu.se> lel@ida.liu.se (Lennart Lovstrand) responds
>>The solution is NOT to introduce more symbols.  There are many enough
>>already, thank you.

*If* one could introduce new symbols *and* get everyone to use them,
they would help.  The first is feasible; the second is not.

In article <631@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>... To expect a single component of a software system--especially
>a software system that spans numerous countries, cultures, and
>operating systems--to understand every little addressing detail
>of every component, is unrealistic.

True.  But consider:  Why must so many mail systems understand so
many forms of addresses?

>It makes more sense to leave the decoding of local addresses to
>local software.

It *is* up to local software, always.

>The nice thing about UUCP has been that it was so easy to get on it.

*BONG*

And this is exactly the problem:  The networks are too highly
interconnected.  There are too many places that speak too many
languages, and they confuse each other as to which one was spoken.

If we had a single gateway between USENET and ARPAnet, messages
could cross a gateway only once.  Messages on the ARPAnet side
would always read

	From: decvax!seismo!mimsy!user@Berkeley.EDU

and the replies would always read

	From decvax!ucbvax!replier@bbn.com remote from seismo

and everything would work, since mimsy would speak only UUCP-`!'
and BBN would speak only ARPA-`@'.  But seismo and mimsy are both
on the ARPAnet as well, and if they are not careful about which
language they are speaking, they will lose track of the proper
meaning of the addresses.

While bracketing would work around the problem, there are other
solutions.  *All* complete solutions require that *all* gateways
do something sensible.  This is easy when there are few gateways,
or when there is some authority that can control the software used
at each gateway.  UUCP is not in this situation.

Just as an example, another solution would be for USENET/ARPAnet
gateways to encode the part of the address that is supposed to
be `private'.  Mail forwarded through ucbvax/Berkeley.EDU to
replier@bbn.com might read

	From: hebviqtbxzergwqvaueccuothksefgo@Berkeley.EDU,

this ridiculous string being the result of encoding `via UUCP from
decvax!seismo!mimsy!user'.  When it receives this user name back
(possibly changed to uppercase!), it could decode this and send
the message on its way.  Note that all networking characters have
been removed (as with parentheses) without using any extra symbols
(which requires others to understand the symbols).

(A more readable encoding, say, using modified byte stuffing,
might be `From: decvvaxvlseismovlmimsyvluser@Berkeley.edu'.
Nonetheless, this should not be necessary.  There is nothing
technically wrong with `!'s on the left of an `@' in ARPA-land.)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	seismo!mimsy!chris