🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark,

First I would like to say that I am not flaming but trying to find solutions
to a problem that affects all users of the Internet mail system.

In reply to:

	From @MIT-MC.ARPA:CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Sat Oct 12 11:11:36 1985
	Date: Sat 12 Oct 85 10:55:19-PDT
	From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
	Subject: Re: Implementing Mail Domain Addresses and Nameservers
	To: header-people@MIT-MC.ARPA
	In-Reply-To: <8510120929.AA09637@ucbjade.Berkeley.Edu>
	Postal-Address: 725 Mariposa Ave. #103; Mountain View, CA 94041-1869
	Phone: +1 (415) 968-1052
	Message-Id: <12150570156.19.CRISPIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>

	Two suggestions:

	     1) avoid provoking the issue during a transition period;

Which issue?  Are referring to the mail addressing problem created
by the partial transition to full domain names? (I would prefer to recognize
that we have a major network problem and try to find some solutions, rather
than closing my eyes to problem and praying that it will go away.)

	retain some set of names that are major mail agents and use those names.

Please explain in more detail. If there is a solution here, I am interested.

	Address other problems as they come up,

Isn't that what I am doing?

	and otherwise make the software reliable enough that widespread
	adoption of domains can be done with confidence.

I do not have control over any of the software being developped, but I hope
the developpers are listening.

	Attempting to "force" production networks into using unproven software
	is a waste.

Where did you get the idea that I was trying to do this?  The local internet
and the systems I use at Berkeley are production systems. (By the way I have
the same reaction to some of the software that comes out of AT&T and Berkeley's
CSRG group. It took one of our system programmers 6 months to debug BSD 4.2
Mail version 2.18 so that it would work in our local mail environment.)

As a Naval Reserve communications specialist I am very concerned about
anything that degrades service on the DDN.

I made two suggestions that should not affect DDN. I am interested in hearing
comments on these suggestions. Are they workable?

	(1) A source routing addressing kludge affecting the MAIL FROM and
From: fields which defeats domain addressing between local domains (and
between the DARPA research community sites and DDN sites), but permits full
domain names within the local mail domain and does not require all local
hosts to be registered in the master host table, for example:
      From: Bill Wells <@Berkeley.EDU:wcwells@ucbopal.Berkeley.EDU>

	(2) Establishing Mail Transport Agents (Mail Gateways) on the
DARPA/DDN "mail bridges" to handle the differences in mail addressing
between the two parts of the Internet mail system. That is, instead of
the Berkeley mail transport agent adding the source routing, the mail
bridge gateways would add the source routing.  This would allow the
DARPA research community part of the Internet mail system to use
nameservers without affecting the DDN.

	     2) flush mailboxes such as netinfo@ucbjade.Berkeley.EDU which are
	completely ridiculous to mail to.  A more reasonable address would be
	"Bill Wells"@Berkeley.EDU, which hopefully some reasonable mail user
	interface can arrive at by sending mail to "Bill Wells"@Berkeley.
	Of course, this means thinking about the semantics of mailboxes as
	something other than login user names.

Well dreams are nice.  But the reality is that even the US Postal Service needs
a post office box or street address.  This suggestion ignores the fact that