🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0qF29.GBG@wimsey.bc.ca> sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>In article <C0pG4u.1Lx@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil> rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson) writes:
>>>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?
>
>Probably a bad idea to set things up like that in the first place. If you
>expect to receive mail via an Internet host some arrangements have to be
>made to let it know how to do it. Trying to pass this information along
>with the message as part of the address just does not have a high success
>rate. It does work in some cases, and if you want to receive your mail 
>that way then keep doing it. 
>
Whether it was a bad idea to begin with is somewhat irrelavent since that
is the way things are now.  Also, when the UUCP network was set up, it was
the logical method.  The bang path in the envelope provided all the info
needed to get the traffic through.  Many of these sites never expected to
receive mail from Internet sites when they joined the UUCP network.

>But if you want trouble free mail, make the arrangements, pay the bills
>and if necessary upgrade your mail software. Your correspondants will
>thank you.
>
Many sites can't afford any better than they have now.  Do we just cast
them aside without any thought whatsoever?  Eventually, as the electronic
superhighway becomes a reality, network connecivity will reach the vast
majority of homes with no more expense than current phone or cable service.
In the meantime, we should try to co-operate as best we can by improving
the existing tools so they work more reliably.  This includes dealing with
the UUCP zone as it exists today while encouraging those that can to
migrate to FQDN.

Mike 
         "Next FQDN won't be good enough, we'll all need X.400"
                               --Net.elitist

--
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      |