🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <246@acheron.UUCP> clarke@acheron.UUCP (Ed Clarke) writes:
>From article <1482@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu>, by deke@ee.rochester.edu
>> Hmmm.  Some of us have binary only distributions to Operating Systems that
>> have a strange mechanism for resolving host names through the "yellow pages"
>
>Sendmail 5.59 and bind are both Berkeley code.  To quote from 'main.c' in
>sendmail (partial quote only):
>
>	Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
>	provided that this notice is preserved and that due credit is
>	given to the University of California at Berkeley.
>
>So throw out your binaries and use the source!
>Ed Clarke
>uunet!bywater!acheron!clarke

You quote me out of context... Yes I have source to sendmail, no I don't
have source for ftp, telnet, finger, and others.

The discussion was moving towards the perceived difference in "reachable"
hosts, by the users, in sendmail vs. say, ftp.

In particular, they would want to know why they CAN ftp to a site, but
CAN'T mail.  The answer of course is that we have an entry for some site in
/etc/hosts, but there is no nameserver to answer for them, and we use the
distributed ftp and the Berkeley sendmail.

Summary:  I know things will eventually work themselves out when everyone
uses nameservers and not host tables.  But right now its pretty darn
frustrating.  State of transistion.


      ^Deke Kassabian,   deke@ee.rochester.edu   or   ur-valhalla!deke
   Univ of Rochester, Dept of EE, Rochester, NY 14627     (+1 716-275-3106)