🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ilqa3INNhfh@wintermute.phys.psu.edu>,
 posted to comp.mail.uucp,
 kenh@leps5.phys.psu.edu (Ken Hornstein) wrote:
>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've seen a few reasonable methods presented here.

>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?".

The answer (to "Why should we bother") is that if you want mail between
different mail systems to work, you have to find a way to make it work. That
applies not only to mail from Inernet sites to UUCP sites without Internet
domain names, but to BITNET sites without Internet domain names and to X.400
addressees as well. It also applies to the reverse direction, and indeed the
UUCP maps do provide a means to get mail from the UUCP world to BITNET and
to at least some parts of the Internet. A chauvinistic "let the rest of the
world convert to the Internet way of doing things" is no more appropriate
than the "let them eat cake" which has been attributed to Marie Antoinette.

>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.

Great. Let's all use pure X.400 addresses for everything. :-) :-) :-) :-)
Different transport methods *do* use different addressing formats. Have
you ever tried to get the U.S. Postal Service to deliver a letter to
"kenh@leps5.phys.psu.edu" (without a name, street address, P.O. Box number,
or ZIP code)?


-- 
	Bruce Lilly		...uupsi!monymsys!sonyd1!blilly!bruce