🚀 go-pugleaf

karl@dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes:

>lmb7421@ultb.uucp writes:
>   The rules are set up for INTERNET, not UUCP.

>Well, that's kinda how I look at matters, too.  But Aydin has
>suggested some fairly rigorous applications of Internet rules in the
>context of UUCP.  First he makes a (rather low-key, off-the-wall)
>suggestion that !-paths are source routes.  I responded by saying it's
>in the wrong format . . .

Hmmm...I'll let you RFC experts look this one up:

Aren't gateways supposed to handle all the issues of reformatting
(which may or may not mean rerouting) addresses when crossing networks?
Thus if I send bangist mail thru an internet gateway, shouldn't the
gateway reform it from
  foo!bar!baz!user
to
  @foo,@bar,@baz,@user
or something similar?  This preserves the uucp routing specified and gets
things into a state where rerouting is definately Rude.

Re Karls comments about possibly disjoint pairs in routes (ie, bar!baz
link doesn't exist, and you are bar) -- it's a sender error.  Return to
sender.  Don't attempt to redeliver, recover, reroute, etc.  The sender
specified a route that don't work, so return to sender.  When you use
specified routing, you damned well better get it right.

>Don't take the world too seriously _all_ the time...

>Grins,

Just a quick compliment for you guys: it's a real pleasure to see folks
have a serious disagreement without burning down the house.  Nice.
-- 
Steve Simmons		          scs@vax3.iti.org
Industrial Technology Institute     Ann Arbor, MI.
"Velveeta -- the Spam of Cheeses!" -- Uncle Bonsai