🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5w43wB5w165w@willard.atl.ga.us> dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson) writes:
>> 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.

The problem is (as it has been explained MANY times) that these
inconsistencies exist because no one has come up with a reasonable method for
people on the Internet to route mail to the UUCP network.

I hate to be rude, but I feel that the question we should be asking here
is not "How can we do this?", but rather "Why should we bother?".  Sure,
there's lots of entries in the UUCP maps, but it's pretty obvious that the
current trend is to get registered in a domain.  How many entries in the maps
are even correct anymore?  UUCP is fine as a transport mechanism, but as a
network I don't think it can cut it anymore.

>> 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...)

I don't think he was saying that you shouldn't be able to find out the
transport method, just that you should be able to use the same addressing
scheme no matter if you're using UUCP, SMTP, or carrier pigeon.

--Ken