🚀 go-pugleaf

(This should reply Ken Rossman's and Jon Solomon's recent notes).

   Before we go on with this issue, the distribution of this
Mail exchange is getting a bit out of hand (and I guess some
of you are already getting more than one copy of each...). I'd
suggest to move it all to one list, and I think Header-People
is the right forum - please correct me if I'm wrong and somewhere
else is more appropriate. I'll accept anything as long as it's ONE
LIST...

   Ken Rossman: I'll use your invitation for further debate..


   RFC920-style addresses have all the properties you're pointing
at.  Yes. But it seems there's one thing you keep forgetting: Bitnet
does not comply with DARPA RFC's (at least not for now).
"Domain-style name has nothing specifically to do with specific
networks or networking protocol (TCP/IP or ARPA)" (Ken Rossman) -
this is only partialy correct. I'd agree it has nothing to do with
TCP/IP and these layers of the networking machanism protocols. But
you simply CAN'T say it's "network independent". It is such only as
far as a network accepts and handles "things" like RFC920 (or
RFC822, or anything). You wouldn't claim, I guess, that the
RFC920-style addresses "should" be recognized and handled correctly
by ANY arbitrary electronic Mail network.  For one thing, the
addresses you generate may even be *invalid* in "another" network.
Gateway-ing Mail into a Mail exchange system X requires that you
send in Mail that agrees with system X's internal rules and
capabilities (at least pack it in an envelope).  That's part of a
gateway function - not just moving Mail files from TCP/IP system (or
whatever) to RSCS/NJE system (or whatever).  You simply can't jump
in and say "you must follow MY rules".  Domain names are NOT a
standard rule in Bitnet.  Yes, a host may have several addresses,
dependent on the NETWORKING ENVIRONMENT. My host name is "Barilan"
in Bitnet, yet some "Barilan.Bitnet@Wiscvm.Wisc.Edu" in the
Internet.  And this is NATURAL.

   And here we get to an important point: YES it would have been
nice if Bitnet would support RFC920 (fully). YES it would be good
and effective if we had a nice hierarchy of domain servers. YES it
would be great if our mail software could handle these things
properly.  BUT ALL THESE ARE NOT TRUE. Not for the moment, and (if
I'm guessing right) not in the near future. It may be right to
follow DARPA community's footsteps in planning the future of Bitnet
(and then, it may not..); but that's well beyond the scope of our
discussions. Having a one-network "image" with cross-network
addressing conventions is SF, yet.

   What we are dealing with is current Mail transfer. And the point
raised was exchanging Mail between a domain-driven system (I guess
you can now call CCnet this) and another system which does not
support or use domains. Using domains in Bitnet is an old issue,
discussed in a few Bitnet forums. Yet FACTS are that most Bitnet
hosts today will not even recognize the ".Bitnet" pseudo-domain
name, suggested for use a long time ago (please don't attack me on
THAT one; I know ".Bitnet" contradicts the "independency" path taken
by RFC920).  FACT is that although a few Bitnet Mail software
packages can recognize top-most domain names and make some
(primitive) decisions - this is more a sort of a hack, with
hardcoded tables and very little "intelligence".

   So you're coming now, saying "I KNOW I'm using the right
philosophy" (which is probably correct), and changing a working
environment into a non-working one. The net result of this, is that
Bitnet users have lost the capability to use the addresses they
receive to reply. They have to know (Jon Solomon), that when they
see "user@CU20A.COLUMBIA.EDU", they have to send replies to
"user@CU20A" (utilizing another system hack - since CU20A is also
not a Bitnet site..). Some of the Bitnet Mail software packages can
fairly easily be further hacked, to contain a list of ALL Columbia
sites, with their "new" names and the Columbia Bitnet-CCnet gateway
address (CUVMA). Some others will require a lot of effort for this
hack.  Is that "correct"? of course not.

   By the way: the ".Bitnet" pseudo domain name is used
today in many places to relay Mail from Internet into Bitnet. Should
this stop too ? NOW ?

   "it should work - NOW". I think that's a good guideline. Sure,
you must be prepared for the future with a full scheme of
implementation phases. Yet I think it's not to anyone's interests to
bring working Mail exchange to a halt due to a "GOOD" addressing
approach. But I'm repeating myself already (sorry - it's getting
late..).

   Doesn't all this sound surprizingly similar to the fight that
took place recently between (mainly) Berkeley and the military
branch of DARPA about RFC920 implementation?  the research community
said "but it's good for us". The military side said "yeah - but it
doesn't work TODAY, and I can't sit down NOW and rework my mail
software".

   I guess that's enuf for now. But I'd appreciate if we could all
think in a constructive direction and find out how this can be
solved - to WORK, not just to be academically "proper".  Columbia
absorbed some fire for going first; it happens...  Solutions,
however, should be general.
(I'm certainly not interested in "flaming" for its own - I really
have better things to do...).

Thank you for your time and patience
Doron.