🚀 go-pugleaf

djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel) writes:

> If I want to send mail to a particular machine, I don't want to have
> to care whether it connects to the world with UUCP or TCP/IP or avian
> carrier.  And I certainly don't want to change my address book because
> they decided to use SLIP instead of UUCP as a transport to their link.

Granted, that might make sense.  (One possible exception to that is, if
it were possible for you to specify the delivery mode [airmail? overland?
each are usually options for the traditional mail, as per your own example])

> If UUCP is so different to every other transport layer in the world
> that it causes sites which use it to be a separate "networking system"
> that cannot sensibly correspond with other networking systems, then I
> don't think it's doing a very good job.

It's not that UUCP is doing things differently, it's that inconsistency
amongst Internet sites (some of whom treat .UUCP as a "valid" domain, by
routing mail to such sites, and some who do not) that causes me to be
concerned.

> My philosophy is that where possible the transport layer used between
> my and my neighbor should be invisible to everyone except ourselves.

A valid opinion.  Not one that I share, however.  Why should such info
not be a matter of public record, so that time-to-delivery could be properly
computed?  (Of course, other schemes could be suggested...)

> 
> -- 
> <David.Keegel@apana.org.au>  <werple!tuple!boombox!djk>  Tel: +61 3 593-1460
> aka: djk@boombox.apana.org.au, djk@cs.mu.oz.au.  Formerly: djk@bby.com.au.


-- 
dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson)
gatech!vdbsan!willard!dawson
emory!uumind!willard!dawson
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814