🚀 go-pugleaf

According to karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste):
>Take a look at it from each side:
>[a] UUCP road kill against rabid rerouter: If you would respect my
>carefully constructed !-path, it would deliver just fine...and it
>WORKED before you mucked with it.
>[b] Rabid rerouter against UUCP road kill: If you would not try to use
>Internet FQDN host addressing in !-paths, or at least leave things out
>of the Internet once they've left it, you wouldn't have to worry about
>mail loops...and it WORKED before you mucked with such dangerous,
>unpredictable options at intermediate sites you don't control.

Argument [b] doesn't hold up.  Fully Qualified Domain Name host addressing
is not only for Internet hosts; rather, it is the standard way of naming
hosts reachable from the Internet.  Consider all the domains without
Internet connections -- much of EUNet, for example, or Ateng.COM. :-)

Must all bang paths be beheaded when they reach the Internet, just because
_some_ of their brethren are invalid?

IMNO, part of the solution to the bang path problem could be the widespread
use of Smail 3.0, which determines the appropriate transport strictly from
the hostname, not from the address syntax.  For example, <uunet.uu.net!rick>
is delivered exactly the same as <rick@uunet.uu.net>.  But it's hard to get;
it looks to me that Smail 3.0 will end the year still in Alpha test.  Sigh.
-- 
You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise.
Chip Salzenberg         |       <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip>
A T Engineering         |       Me?  Speak for my company?  Surely you jest!