🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan10.141201.22273@blilly.uucp> lilb@sony.compuserve.com (Bruce Lilly) writes:
>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.

Like what?

>>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.

Most BITNET sites also have domain names.  Besides, BITNET is dying as of late.
In the past year more nodes have been dropped than added.  The UUCP addressing
scheme just doesn't make sense today.  It would probably be best if UUCP died
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.

It would be nice if there _was_ a way to gate mail painlessly, but there isn't.
Besides, as it's been pointed out, a lot of the map data is incorrect.  How are
we supposed to route mail to a network that doesn't have correct internal
routing data?

--Ken