🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0pG4u.1Lx@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil> rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson) writes:
>>[get FQDN]
>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.

Perhaps, but this fact is irrelevant.  The problem lies in routing
and addressing for Internet->UUCP, not UUCP->Internet.

>That host may be totally unaware that they are the connection.
>In this case, what site acts as the MX?

The closest agreeable site on the Internet.

>The originating site only has an
>agreement to exchange mail with it's neighbors.  Now what?

	Huh?  If the site has an agreement to exchange mail with its
neighbors, then why is it allowing mail to go through its site to
downstream hosts of its neighbors?  If a site is this well connected,
then I can't imagine them not agreeing to agree to one simple MX, and
an entry in their mailer to say "mail to foo.bar.org goes to
!neighbor!hop1!hop2!foo!%s".  This is not rocket science, nor is it
hard to maintain, unless you get into the hundreds of MX's.  The
beauty of this is that all this techical stuff is kept local to the
sites involved with actually delivering the mail.  If suddenly "hop2"
becomes a neighbor, then the MX site can immediately change his
mailer to say: "mail to foo.bar.org goes to !hop2!foo!%s" and all
his mail will now take the new path.  No more waiting weeks or months
for everyone to update their pathalias databases.

--Dave
-- 
System Administrator, Population Research Institute    barr@pop.psu.edu
	What if there was no such thing as a hypothetical question?