🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec16.111419.21308@npal.rn.com>, sbrant@npal.rn.com writes:
>   I think the solution is to use the mail_rewrite rules to intercept
>   all outbound-to addresses and to insert the routing info forcing
>   the message to go to the router system.  I have attempted to do this
>   and it does modify the b.xxx file and the d.xxx file remains ok with
>   the proper @ address and uucp likes this.  But I am not certain if this
>   really works, or is the correct method.

I'm running UUCP v1.3 and that's exactly what I do so that people can enter
Internet addresses in UUCP%"" and use the REPLY command.
And it's always worked 100%.

Also, you can put in a line that starts with the name "smart-host" in your
U.whatever file equated to the router name and UUCP will send all messages
it cannot route to the router. But I haven't neede to do this as the first
message has always worked a treat. It's documented.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David P. Morgan                        Internet: david@ittpub.nl        |ucannot
ITT Publitec R+D BV                    UUCP:     ...!sun4nl!ittpub!david|readdis
Amsterdam                              PSI:      020412905761212::DAVID |onaVT52

sbrant@npal.rn.com wrote:
: -- 
: Eh gods...

:   My feed point wants us to stop doing routing from here.  We use VMS uucp
:   2.0.  He says that because our system is establishing routing, we are
:   not fully using his router in the best way. He is running smtp.  

:   I am not clear as to how to establish this as if we do not have the
:   paths database online, the uucp blows up and will not send the mail
:   and responds with INVALID internet address.

:   I think the solution is to use the mail_rewrite rules to intercept
:   all outbound-to addresses and to insert the routing info forcing
:   the message to go to the router system.  I have attempted to do this
:   and it does modify the b.xxx file and the d.xxx file remains ok with
:   the proper @ address and uucp likes this.  But I am not certain if this
:   really works, or is the correct method.

	A better solution is to have a very small paths database.  Have an
entry for your site and any you call.  Put a smart-host line pointing to your
UUCP/SMTP neighbor.  Take out the rest of the UUCP entries.  Run the map
build procedure and you should have a working paths file.


-Earle
-- 
Earle Ake  Internet: <ake@dayton.saic.com>  NSI-DECnet (SPAN): 28276::ake

In article <1gopmdINN2s0@dayub.dayton.saic.com>, ake@dayton.saic.com (Earle Ake) writes:
> sbrant@npal.rn.com wrote:
> : -- 
> : Eh gods...
> 
> :   My feed point wants us to stop doing routing from here.  We use VMS uucp
> :   2.0.  He says that because our system is establishing routing, we are
> :   not fully using his router in the best way. He is running smtp.  
> 
> :   I am not clear as to how to establish this as if we do not have the
> :   paths database online, the uucp blows up and will not send the mail
> :   and responds with INVALID internet address.
> 
> :   I think the solution is to use the mail_rewrite rules to intercept
> :   all outbound-to addresses and to insert the routing info forcing
> :   the message to go to the router system.  I have attempted to do this
> :   and it does modify the b.xxx file and the d.xxx file remains ok with
> :   the proper @ address and uucp likes this.  But I am not certain if this
> :   really works, or is the correct method.
> 
> 	A better solution is to have a very small paths database.  Have an
> entry for your site and any you call.  Put a smart-host line pointing to your
> UUCP/SMTP neighbor.  Take out the rest of the UUCP entries.  Run the map
> build procedure and you should have a working paths file.
> 

  Yes, this will work, as I have tried it.  However, it is assuming that 
  only systems that you send mail  will be in the paths database.  This may
  not be true in many cases.  For example, if I see a listserv I wish to 
  send a note to, if it is not in the paths database, then UUCP refuses to
  send  mail to a system NOT in the paths database.  UUCP responds with
  an INVALID internet address.   So simply modifying the paths database is not
  the answer.  In fact, it looks like one needs to maintain a complete data
  base just to satisfy uucp.  Even if the mail rewrite rule changes the path
  and interceptS all outbound-to messages and routes them to the neighboring
  router.

  I have managed to get the local router, machine a, to send files to machine
  b now by using the rewrite rules, but I am having trouble getting machine
  b to route back to a.  If anyone has an example of their rewrite file that
  solves the two way problem, would you please share it here?  I have had 
  several email responses, and it seems this is more of a common problem than
  I thought.  So if you have the solution, why not share it so others my fix
  this problem.

  Thank you again and Happy Holidays!

  regards;





                                                     Steven B. Brant
________________________________________________________________________
       -->> sbrant@npal.rn.com <<--[ or ] -->> nstar!towers!npal!sbrant <<--

In article <1992Dec19.233940.21312@npal.rn.com>, sbrant@npal.rn.com writes:
>   Yes, this will work, as I have tried it.  However, it is assuming that 
>   only systems that you send mail  will be in the paths database.  This may
>   not be true in many cases.  For example, if I see a listserv I wish to 
>   send a note to, if it is not in the paths database, then UUCP refuses to
>   send  mail to a system NOT in the paths database.  UUCP responds with
>   an INVALID internet address.   So simply modifying the paths database is not
>   the answer.  In fact, it looks like one needs to maintain a complete data
>   base just to satisfy uucp.  Even if the mail rewrite rule changes the path
>   and interceptS all outbound-to messages and routes them to the neighboring
>   router.

This isn't right.  I correspond with people all over the world and my paths
database has ONLY my direct connections AND a smarthost pointer to the machine
I use to route all other traffic through.  I've never had any problem with UUCP
refusing to send the mail.

Perhaps you didn't define your UUCP database properly?  How about letting us
see what you set up.
-- 
Dick Munroe				Internet: munroe@dmc.com
Doyle Munroe Consultants, Inc.		UUCP: ...uunet!thehulk!munroe
267 Cox St.				Office: (508) 568-1618
Hudson, Ma.				FAX: (508) 562-1133

GET CONNECTED!!! Send mail to info@dmc.com to find out about DMConnection.