🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0Lw2o.H82@wimsey.bc.ca> sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>In article <1ilqa3INNhfh@wintermute.phys.psu.edu> kenh@leps5.phys.psu.edu (Ken Hornstein) writes:
>>In article <5w43wB5w165w@willard.atl.ga.us> dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson) writes:
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>I have to agree with this post. One addressing scheme. Get those uucp
>hosts FQDN's. This can easily be handled by the site that connects them
>to the internet.
>
That is not as easy as it sounds.  There are thousands of UUCP sites who
are multiple hops from the Internet via multiple paths.  The host that
eventually drops their mail into the Internet may be different for each
message.  That host may be totally unaware that they are the connection.
In this case, what site acts as the MX?  The originating site only has an
agreement to exchange mail with it's neighbors.  Now what?

--
LCDR Mike Dobson, Sys Admin for | Internet: rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil
nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil      | UUCP:   ...uunet!mimsy!nmrdc1!rdc30
AT&T 3B2/600G Sys V R 3.2.3     | BITNET:   dobson@usuhsb or nrd0mxd@vmnmdsc
CMC TCP/IP for 3B2 V 2.6.1      |