Mixed format addresses (was Re: Splash File)
John Stanley
> Technically,
>
> uusite!us...@internet.host
>
> is illegal.
Care to cite references for this statement? RFC-1123 specifically
mentions this format for addressing, and, while discouraging it strongly
for Internet-only traffic, allows that networks that connect to the
Internet may have other requirements and specifies exactly how such an
address will be interpreted.
>Different versions of Smail can read the address to
>be either
>
> a) Take bang literally. Send to uusite first, then send to
> us...@internet.host. This will fail since uusite is unknown.
Then Smail is wrong. Any implementation that pretends to be RFC-822
compliant and ignores the @ in an address is wrong.
> However, a Reply-To of 'internet.host!uusite!user' should
>always work, never fail, even on a rainy day. I can't see any reason
>why it *wouldn't* work.
Except: there is no requirement for Internet mailers to understand UUCP
bang paths. There is also no requirement for one that does to be able to
guess that 'internet.host' is an Internet host when it can't find that
name in the UUCP host maps.
>Note that a bang address as the From: header
>in a _news_ posting is illegal, but as Reply-To it is ok.
Try again. The Reply-To field has the same format at the From field.
(RFC 1036)
Ken Mcvay
>In article <Xq03uB...@vector0.SAC.CA.US> j...@vector0.SAC.CA.US (Dazed N. Confused) writes:
>> Technically,
>>
>> uusite!us...@internet.host
>>
>> is illegal.
>Care to cite references for this statement? RFC-1123 specifically
>mentions this format for addressing, and, while discouraging it strongly
>for Internet-only traffic, allows that networks that connect to the
>Internet may have other requirements and specifies exactly how such an
>address will be interpreted.
Some sites, like mine, do not have UUCP forwarders - the result of this is
that mixed addresses end up being bounced between the leaf and my site.
There are obviously cases where it is to be avoided if at all possible.
--
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of an eye, the more light you shed
upon it, the more it contracts." (Oliver Wendell Holmes)
Vince Skahan
>In article <Xq03uB...@vector0.SAC.CA.US> j...@vector0.SAC.CA.US (Dazed N. Confused) writes:
>>Different versions of Smail can read the address to
>>be either
>>
>> a) Take bang literally. Send to uusite first, then send to
>> us...@internet.host. This will fail since uusite is unknown.
>Then Smail is wrong. Any implementation that pretends to be RFC-822
>compliant and ignores the @ in an address is wrong.
I've seen mailers that interpret it both ways...obviously one is right
and one is wrong.
my understanding is that user%systema@systemb and systema!user@systemb
and systemb!systema!user should all go to systemb, where its name gets
stripped off and the message gets shipped to systema for delivery to 'user'.
--
---------- Vince Skahan --------- vi...@victrola.sea.wa.us ----------
the most dangerous thing in the world is an engineer with a wrench
David Douthitt
| In article <Xq03uB...@vector0.SAC.CA.US> j...@vector0.SAC.CA.US (Dazed N.
| >Different versions of Smail can read the address to
| >be either
| >
| > a) Take bang literally. Send to uusite first, then send to
| > us...@internet.host. This will fail since uusite is unknown.
|
| Then Smail is wrong. Any implementation that pretends to be RFC-822
| compliant and ignores the @ in an address is wrong.
Wasn't this method of interpretation the way things were done initially?
I documented a UUCP package for CP/M that did things this way. As a side
note, it was mentioned that this was counter to the "modern" way of doing
things.
Seems to me the best thing to do is use '%' addresssing or not use
mixed-mode addressing at all.
--
UUCP: ....!fullfeed.com!ruth!rat | Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253
InterNet: r...@ruth.UUCP | 80Megs+ of Usenet/Fido programs!
Fidonet: David Douthitt 1:121/23 |
"...because appealing to the masses has | Files available more ways than
never appealed to us." | any other BBS in America!
Files via: anon uucp, Fidonet FREQ, mail to archive...@ruth.uucp, etc.
daw...@willard.uucp
> In article <1fipfu...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (Joh
>
> >In article <Xq03uB...@vector0.SAC.CA.US> j...@vector0.SAC.CA.US (Dazed N.
> >> Technically,
> >>
> >> uusite!us...@internet.host
> >>
> >> is illegal.
>
> >Care to cite references for this statement? RFC-1123 specifically
> >mentions this format for addressing, and, while discouraging it strongly
> >for Internet-only traffic, allows that networks that connect to the
> >Internet may have other requirements and specifies exactly how such an
> >address will be interpreted.
>
> Some sites, like mine, do not have UUCP forwarders - the result of this is
> that mixed addresses end up being bounced between the leaf and my site.
> There are obviously cases where it is to be avoided if at all possible.
Which only goes to illustrate my own belief that Internet-addressing-only
is the Spawn of Satan. Evil, malicious, we're-better-than-you and we-don't
take-no-UUCP-guff mongering ....
If your forwarders can't rightly figure how to forward mail to site!person,
even though site is not a direct connection.. well, those forwarders ought
not to be pretending (as they are) to be "smart." They should just crawl
back into their own little RFC-protected ivory towers. By Baal, just send
mail you don't know how to forward to a site that DOES know about it! Good
advice, even for "Internet-only" sites.
--
daw...@willard.UUCP (Willard Dawson)
gatech!vdbsan!willard!dawson
emory!uumind!willard!dawson
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
Bill Fenner
|just send
|mail you don't know how to forward to a site that DOES know about it! Good
|advice, even for "Internet-only" sites.
Ok, so who should cmsun.cmf.nrl.navy.mil forward UUCP mail to? There are no
UUCP sites that I know of in .nrl.navy.mil; and why should J. Random Site
necessarily forward my UUCP mail for me?
People on the Internet can't just pick an arbitrary place to send all their
UUCP mail; they have to get permission first. No one site wants to be the
central Internet->UUCP gateway...
Bill
Ralph Sims
>People on the Internet can't just pick an arbitrary place to send all their
>UUCP mail; they have to get permission first. No one site wants to be the
>central Internet->UUCP gateway...
Hey! Whatever DID happen to rutgers? :)
--
halcyon.com, Public Access Internet, Seattle, WA, +1 206 382 6245
"A World of Information at your Fingertips"
P.O. Box 555, Grapeview, WA 98546-0555, USA
ral...@halcyon.com, +1 206 955 1050
John Stanley
>In article <TDPcVB...@willard.UUCP> daw...@willard.UUCP writes:
>|just send
>|mail you don't know how to forward to a site that DOES know about it! Good
>|advice, even for "Internet-only" sites.
>
>Ok, so who should cmsun.cmf.nrl.navy.mil forward UUCP mail to? There are no
>UUCP sites that I know of in .nrl.navy.mil; and why should J. Random Site
>necessarily forward my UUCP mail for me?
J.Random.Site shouldn't, but one of the seven listed in the UUCP maps
would. Two of those are, as I remember, apple.com and uunet.uu.net. I
think gatekeeper.dec.com is also in that list, but I could be wrong.
>People on the Internet can't just pick an arbitrary place to send all their
>UUCP mail; they have to get permission first. No one site wants to be the
>central Internet->UUCP gateway...
There were 7, last time I looked...
Bill Fenner
|In article <ByvKw...@cs.psu.edu> fen...@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes:
|>why should J. Random Site necessarily forward my UUCP mail for me?
|
|J.Random.Site shouldn't, but one of the seven listed in the UUCP maps
|would.
The UUCP maps have nothing to do with the Internet. d.Top lists apple,
decwrl, harvard, talcott, ucbvax, and uunet as connecting to the Internet.
That doesn't mean that any of those machines has volunteered to be an
Internet->UUCP gateway; just a UUCP->Internet gateway.
There is no way to register yourself as an Internet->UUCP gateway; therefore,
there is no way to find such a gateway short of asking random postmasters.
Bill
Ralph Sims
>In article <1fuv0g...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>|J.Random.Site shouldn't, but one of the seven listed in the UUCP maps
>|would.
>The UUCP maps have nothing to do with the Internet. d.Top lists apple,
>decwrl, harvard, talcott, ucbvax, and uunet as connecting to the Internet.
>That doesn't mean that any of those machines has volunteered to be an
>Internet->UUCP gateway; just a UUCP->Internet gateway.
It appears, from random log-poking, that UUNET may be returning mail
that is not to one of its customers. I really wouldn't blame them,
if that, in fact, is what's happening. It's really hard to tell for
sure, as the maps, as good as they are, are rarely as up-to-date as
the mail that relies on them for routing. Perhaps another reason
for domainizing addresses. I know from experience that over-zealousness
to get a system 'connected' often outruns the 'paperwork', causing
no end of problems. This, coupled with an intermediate site going
down, doesn't help.
I totally agree that the folks that run the sites that 'unsolicited'
mail will pass through should be asked/consulted first. Makes for
good PR.
John Stanley
>The UUCP maps have nothing to do with the Internet.
They do when they list the gateways for getting Internet mail to UUCP
sites.
>d.Top lists apple,
>decwrl, harvard, talcott, ucbvax, and uunet as connecting to the Internet.
>That doesn't mean that any of those machines has volunteered to be an
>Internet->UUCP gateway; just a UUCP->Internet gateway.
Actually, it means more that they will act Internet->UUCP than the other
way. There are lots of UUCP->Internet gateways -- many sites that have
both connections have mailers that are smart enough to gate traffic.
>There is no way to register yourself as an Internet->UUCP gateway;
Having your name put in the UUCP maps volunteering to do so is one way
of registering yourself as a gateway.
>therefore,
>there is no way to find such a gateway short of asking random postmasters.
Or looking in the UUCP map d.Top file.
John Stanley
>It appears, from random log-poking, that UUNET may be returning mail
>that is not to one of its customers. I really wouldn't blame them,
>if that, in fact, is what's happening.
I would not doubt that they bounce mail sent through them that has an
explicit bang-path which does not match reality. Such an address would
be constructed by an intelligent Internet site using UUCP maps at
that site which are not current, or by a stupid one that generates
"uunet!somewhere!som...@uunet.uu.net".
Mail sent this morning to a UUCP site that is not one of their customers
has not yet been bounced, and I have no doubt that it will be waiting
for me at home tonight. That mail was sent without an explicit routing,
other than routing it to uunet first. I.e.,
"somewhere!som...@uunet.uu.net".
UUNET has said that they don't want to route for the world, but
considering that there are 6 or seven advertised gateways, they don't
need to.
>It's really hard to tell for
>sure, as the maps, as good as they are, are rarely as up-to-date as
>the mail that relies on them for routing.
This is a good reason for Internet sites to use one of the listed
gateways, for there is some expectation that their maps will be kept up
better than J.Random.Site.
Bill Fenner
|In article <Byw7M...@cs.psu.edu> fen...@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes:
|>The UUCP maps have nothing to do with the Internet.
|
|They do when they list the gateways for getting Internet mail to UUCP sites.
The UUCP maps have nothing to do with the Internet.
There, did it make any more sense the second time?
Why do you think they do?
|>That doesn't mean that any of those machines has volunteered to be an
|>Internet->UUCP gateway; just a UUCP->Internet gateway.
|
|Actually, it means more that they will act Internet->UUCP than the other
|way.
Who says? Not the UUCP maps; all they say is that these machines can provide
a way to get from UUCP to the Internet. Why you think that it implies a
reverse connection (and why "uunet" could be a meaningful name in the
Internet world) is beyond me.
Followups redirected to comp.mail.uucp; this has nothing to do with Waffle.
Bill
John Stanley
>The UUCP maps have nothing to do with the Internet.
>
Fine, Bill. Okay. Anything you want.
Just stop telling people that there is nothing that talks about
where UUCP bound mail should be sent by ignorant Internet mailers.
>Why do you think they do?
Because I can read.
Dazed N. Confused
> | > a) Take bang literally. Send to uusite first, then send to
> | > us...@internet.host. This will fail since uusite is unknown.
> |
> | Then Smail is wrong. Any implementation that pretends to be RFC-822
> | compliant and ignores the @ in an address is wrong.
>
> Wasn't this method of interpretation the way things were done initially?
Realize that just because STANDARDS change, old software on some
old machine doesn't necessarily ever get updated. How many Bnews
sites are there still out there?
There was a time when % didn't exist. There was a time when @ and
the DNS database didn't exist. And there is software out there,
chugging along merrily and not knowing anything about the current
standards.
> Seems to me the best thing to do is use '%' addresssing or not use
> mixed-mode addressing at all.
Update on my misc.test post. I received 13 total responses
with my new address, j...@vector0.sac.ca.us. I received only three
(two of which were BITNET.. go figger) when using
jon%vec...@sactoh0.sac.ca.us. The "best thing to do" will ALWAYS
be to register in a domain.
Mail coo...@isi.edu.
--Jon
j...@vector0.SAC.CA.US Life is like a kiwi.
bang!bang!bang!you're dead.
Bill Fenner
|Just stop telling people that there is nothing that talks about
|where UUCP bound mail should be sent by ignorant Internet mailers.
Well, why don't you tell me what it is that talks about where ignorant
Internet mailers should send their UUCP bound mail? It's not the UUCP
maps; they're for UUCP sites to figure out where to send their mail.
Just because a site advertises a connection to, say, .edu in the UUCP
maps does not mean that they are willing to gateway mail from the Internet
to UUCP.
|>Why do you think they do?
|
|Because I can read.
Oh, gee, what a coherent argument. Provide real reasons or go away.
Followups redirected to comp.mail.uucp once again; this is not a Waffle issue.
Bill
John Stanley
>Well, why don't you tell me what it is that talks about where ignorant
>Internet mailers should send their UUCP bound mail?
You claim to have read the d.Top map. Read it again. The first list of
sites is a list of TO UUCP domain sites.
>It's not the UUCP maps; they're for UUCP sites to figure out where to
>send their mail.
So any Internet site that uses the maps to figure out where to send mail
is wrong? Any admin who is smart enough to read the d.Top file, and can
figure out that sites advertising TO UUCP connections are doing so for
sites outside UUCP, is wrong? Please, stop.
>Just because a site advertises a connection to, say, .edu in the UUCP
>maps does not mean that they are willing to gateway mail from the Internet
>to UUCP.
But a site advertising a connection to .UUCP does.
>|>Why do you think they do?
>|
>|Because I can read.
>
>Oh, gee, what a coherent argument. Provide real reasons or go away.
I keep providing them. Pay attention or go away.
I have no more intention of going away than you do.
daw...@willard.uucp
> In article <1fuv0g...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (Joh
> |In article <ByvKw...@cs.psu.edu> fen...@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner
> |>why should J. Random Site necessarily forward my UUCP mail for me?
> |
> |J.Random.Site shouldn't, but one of the seven listed in the UUCP maps
> |would.
>
> The UUCP maps have nothing to do with the Internet. d.Top lists apple,
> decwrl, harvard, talcott, ucbvax, and uunet as connecting to the Internet.
> That doesn't mean that any of those machines has volunteered to be an
> Internet->UUCP gateway; just a UUCP->Internet gateway.
>
There are quite a few persons who disagree vehemently with that assertion.
> There is no way to register yourself as an Internet->UUCP gateway; therefore,
> there is no way to find such a gateway short of asking random postmasters.
>
> Bill
That last bit illustrates in graphic detail that the Internet is the wrong
place to go for email services! One-way routing? How wonderfully useful.
daw...@willard.uucp
> I totally agree that the folks that run the sites that 'unsolicited'
> mail will pass through should be asked/consulted first. Makes for
> good PR.
True.. but how 'bout my playing the Devil's advocate for a sec:
If you were sysadmin on a large system, well-positioned on the Internet
with respect to having many direct UUCP connections, do you for a minute
want to see email from everyone on the net, asking if it's OK to route
mail from site-a to site-b via your system? You'll find yourself answering
email rather than doing real work... and answering mail is rarely the
reason sysadmins are hired.
>
> --
> halcyon.com, Public Access Internet, Seattle, WA, +1 206 382 6245
> "A World of Information at your Fingertips"
> P.O. Box 555, Grapeview, WA 98546-0555, USA
> ral...@halcyon.com, +1 206 955 1050
John Stanley
>Have you asked these sites why they are advertising connections to .UUCP, or
>are you theorizing?
No, and I don't ask every other site in the maps why they advertise
connections to the sites that they do, either. I have seen this
discussed by UUNET representatives in the past, and the discussion was
that there are 7 gateways listed, uunet didn't want to do it all by
themselves, and people should pick the closest site instead of just
picking uunet.
>If they are advertising connections for, say, the
>Internet, then why do they use UUCP hostnames, and not Internet FQDN's,
>which would make things significantly easier?
If you take a small amount of time, you will notice that all (at least
every one I have taken the time to check) of the entries on the list do
give FQDN. Not in d.Top, where it would be redundant, but in other parts
of the maps. In the CORRECT place to list information ABOUT a site, as
opposed to the simple fact that a site will act as a gateway.
>A site advertising a connection to .UUCP says that it is willing to handle
>any mail from UUCP going to the .UUCP domain.
That isn't a gateway. Almost every UUCP site is set up to handle mail
going from UUCP to UUCP. Every UUCP site I have set up is capable of
that. Why isn't almost every site listed in the "gateway" list?
Hint: the term "gateway" is important here.
>But the maps still say nothing about the Internet.
Please read the file. Then remember what "the net" was called prior to
"Internet". Think about the term "arpa", and the term "similar".
>Why do you keep posting only to comp.bbs.waffle, when this discussion has
>nothing to do with Waffle?
If it had nothing to do with Waffle, it wouldn't have started here.
Christopher Davis
BF> == fen...@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes:
BF> There is no way to register yourself as an Internet->UUCP gateway;
BF> therefore, there is no way to find such a gateway short of asking
BF> random postmasters.
WD> That last bit illustrates in graphic detail that the Internet is
WD> the wrong place to go for email services! One-way routing? How
WD> wonderfully useful.
MX records exist for a reason. Sites with registered domain names need
not be on the Internet to be reachable from it. Registering in the *.us
domain only requires you to find one or more machines with IP
connectivity willing to route mail bound for you.
Perhaps the Internet is the wrong place to go for email services that
don't put themselves in the Domain Name System. I'd argue that a
similar argument holds for the UUCP zone and sites that don't list
themselves in the maps...
--
Christopher K. Davis | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<c...@eff.org> EFF #14 | for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF | Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665 [CKD1] | --Peter da Silva <pe...@ferranti.com>
Ralph Sims
>ral...@halcyon.com (Ralph Sims) writes:
>> I totally agree that the folks that run the sites that 'unsolicited'
>> mail will pass through should be asked/consulted first. Makes for
>> good PR.
>True.. but how 'bout my playing the Devil's advocate for a sec:
>If you were sysadmin on a large system, well-positioned on the Internet
>with respect to having many direct UUCP connections, do you for a minute
>want to see email from everyone on the net, asking if it's OK to route
No, I'd give someone else the job. :) But let's put things in perspective
(whatever that means)... (also, 'everyone' on the net doesn't need this
type of service)...
It is relatively easy to set Waffle up for mail. It is relatively easy
to find a site that will route your mail for you (sometimes this might
be a half-dozen bangpaths down the pike, but...). It is also easy to
define your smarthost as : myhost!hishost!bighost. It's an easy way
out. But is this being a good UUCPneighbor? Is it politically correct?
If a site places itself in the position of being a sugar daddy, then I
imagine it takes whatever's thrown at it and smiles. But I think it's
quite nicer to say something like "Hey, I appreciate what you're doing.
I want to make sure I can use your services. My routes (paths) are..."
Although I've never received mail from Bill Gates, postm...@microsoft.com
replies in a couple of days.
>mail from site-a to site-b via your system? You'll find yourself answering
>email rather than doing real work... and answering mail is rarely the
>reason sysadmins are hired.
No, but keeping a system (or sub-system running smoothly IS--or should be).
Yet another argument for MX forwarders and domain registrations. But then
an admin may have to do some actual work (like modifying mailer.tbl, etc.)
[insert smiley or whatever turns you on]
Bill Fenner
|I have seen this
|discussed by UUNET representatives in the past, and the discussion was
|that there are 7 gateways listed, uunet didn't want to do it all by
|themselves, and people should pick the closest site instead of just
|picking uunet.
Last time I asked uunet if they would route mail for me, they said that they'd
be glad to, as long as I was a paying customer.
|If you take a small amount of time, you will notice that all (at least
|every one I have taken the time to check) of the entries on the list do
|give FQDN.
harvard doesn't, but we can ignore that. Note that bbn lists a connection to
harvard.harvard.edu, but there is no alias in harvard's map entry.
|Not in d.Top, where it would be redundant, but in other parts
|of the maps. In the CORRECT place to list information ABOUT a site, as
|opposed to the simple fact that a site will act as a gateway.
So now you're saying that an Internet site should get *all* of the UUCP maps
so that they can find their Internet->UUCP forwarder?
Don't you think that, if the purpose of listing a machine in d.Top was to allow
Internet people to use that machine as a gateway, the Internet address might
be put in the file, even as a comment?
|>A site advertising a connection to .UUCP says that it is willing to handle
|>any mail from UUCP going to the .UUCP domain.
|
|That isn't a gateway.
You're right, it isn't a gateway. Why do you want to use it as one? Those
sites are saying that they are willing to handle mail to anywhere in the
.UUCP pseudo-domain, but the scope of that statement is implicitly limited to
the .UUCP pseudo-domain, since that's the only place the UUCP maps are
relevant.
|>But the maps still say nothing about the Internet.
|
|Please read the file. Then remember what "the net" was called prior to
|"Internet". Think about the term "arpa", and the term "similar".
I'm sorry, I forgot that when you get into a discussion with John Stanley, you
have to spell out your exact meaning so that he doesn't purposely misinterpret
it just to get a jab in.
The UUCP maps say nothing about how the Internet is supposed to route its
E-Mail.
|>Why do you keep posting only to comp.bbs.waffle, when this discussion has
|>nothing to do with Waffle?
|
|If it had nothing to do with Waffle, it wouldn't have started here.
The original posting had something to do with Waffle, but it triggered a
discussion of the UUCP maps, which have little to nothing to do with
comp.bbs.waffle, and this discussion belongs in a group in which it is
appropriate to discuss the UUCP maps.
Followups to comp.mail.uucp.
Bill
daw...@willard.uucp
They want to be part of the largest net in the world and not accept any
responsibility for running it? That's nice. "Have to get permission first?"
That's a good idea, I suppose, but I don't recall seeing such in any RFC...
I guess you might find it in a "fair use" document, somewhere. There are
systems on the Internet that are well known as hub sites, and mail tends to
flow through them whether intentional or not. Why ignore reality?
People on the Internet can just pick an arbitrary place to send all their
UUCP mail... happens all the time... smells a bit like UUNET. For what it's
worth, I've had mail bounce from Internet->Internet on a "host not found in
domain x" error, when it did in fact exist... we're not just talking about
the forwarding of UUCP-addressed mail here.
You have a smarthost defined in your static file? You keep a paths file?
If so, you are performing smartmailing for a subset of the net. I'm not
for a minute suggesting that ONE site be the smarthost for the whole net.
That's obviously more than possible. But, why not have a concept of a
"smarthost" for Internet mailers? Sites that decide (and bounce mail), on
the basis of MX records or pathalias records, that a site does not exist
and that there is NO possible route to that site, when in fact the site
exists and is reachable... well, those sites are doing a disservice to
all concerned... most especially to those to whom they have offered their
services as "mail forwarder." This kind of bounce happens all the time,
and it is very frustrating. I tend to think.. "They must be running
software version X, which is well known for its inability to properly
route mail."
It's not policy deficits, but implementation limitations, that keep email
from working as well as it should.
John Stanley
>Last time I asked uunet if they would route mail for me, they said that they'd
>be glad to, as long as I was a paying customer.
This is in direct contradiction to either of our interpretations of the
d.Top file. According to your interpretation, uunet is offering to
route mail for anyone within in the uucp domain. According to your
request, they won't route for non-paying customers.
This is also in direct contradiction to what they are doing, for they do
route mail to non-paying customers, as recently as yesterday.
>So now you're saying that an Internet site should get *all* of the UUCP maps
>so that they can find their Internet->UUCP forwarder?
7 files. Delivered automatically by comp.mail.maps. Or available by
WAIS. Or by gopher. Or ftp. Or by asking another admin. What an
incredibly small amount of effort.
>Don't you think that, if the purpose of listing a machine in d.Top was to allow
>Internet people to use that machine as a gateway, the Internet address might
>be put in the file, even as a comment?
Sure, they might be. In this case, they aren't. The addresses are
available. They aren't any big secret. The fact that they aren't in this
file is proof only that they aren't in this file.
>|>A site advertising a connection to .UUCP says that it is willing to handle
>|>any mail from UUCP going to the .UUCP domain.
>|
>|That isn't a gateway.
>
>You're right, it isn't a gateway.
Would you PLEASE read the d.Top file? Would you PLEASE parse the
continual use of the term "gateway" in that file. The 7 sites listed
therein are listed as GATEWAYS. That means more than just passing UUCP
traffic from one UUCP site to another. If it did not, then almost EVERY
UUCP site would be in that list, for almost EVERY UUCP site can pass
UUCP traffic from one site to another.
> Why do you want to use it as one?
Because it is in a list explicitely marked "GATEWAY".
>Those
>sites are saying that they are willing to handle mail to anywhere in the
>.UUCP pseudo-domain, but the scope of that statement is implicitly limited to
>the .UUCP pseudo-domain, since that's the only place the UUCP maps are
>relevant.
The scope of that statement is implicitly EXTERNAL to UUCP, since this
is a list of GATEWAYS, and you have already admitted that passing
traffic from UUCP to UUCP isn't a gateway. If a list refers to GATEWAYS,
and the only way a site can be a gateway is if it passes traffic to
OTHER NETS, then those sites are saying that they pass traffic to (and
from) other nets.
I would ask you to notice the phrase "UUCP AND OTHER TOP LEVEL
DOMAINS". This is an EXPLICIT statement that this file has information
concerning OTHER DOMAINS THAN UUCP. You can hold to your belief of
implicit limitation to UUCP, but the file itself contradicts that.
>|>But the maps still say nothing about the Internet.
>
>I'm sorry, I forgot that when you get into a discussion with John Stanley, you
>have to spell out your exact meaning so that he doesn't purposely misinterpret
>it just to get a jab in.
Bill, if you want to keep this civil, you can. If you don't, then fire
away. If you feel that you don't have to spell out your exact meaning
when you write, then don't be too surprised when others don't interpret
what you say the way you want them to.
>The UUCP maps say nothing about how the Internet is supposed to route its
>E-Mail.
(Surprise, Bill. This is almost how I interpreted your statement. This
one doesn't have the same meaning as the latter; in fact, this one is
very much more restrictive in meaning. )
The UUCP map file d.Top explicitely lists gateways for traffic from
outside domains. This includes the Internet. Thus, yes, indeed, the
UUCP maps say SOMETHING about the Internet. Internet sites who choose
to can route traffic through the gateways it lists.
Technically, you are correct. "Supposed to" implies "must", and the
d.Top file does not say Internet sites must use any of those gateways
listed. It is an offer. Internet sites CAN route their mail that way,
but they certainly aren't required. You choose not to accept, that's
ok.
Now, really, is the only sticking point the word "supposed"? If so, then
we are in agreement, because I don't recall every saying that Internet
sites are supposed to use the listed gateways. They CAN if they want
to. The list of gateways exists.
Bill Fenner
|Any admin who is smart enough to read the d.Top file, and can
|figure out that sites advertising TO UUCP connections are doing so for
|sites outside UUCP, is wrong? Please, stop.
Have you asked these sites why they are advertising connections to .UUCP, or
are you theorizing? If they are advertising connections for, say, the
Internet, then why do they use UUCP hostnames, and not Internet FQDN's,
which would make things significantly easier?
|In article <ByxDG...@cs.psu.edu> fen...@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes:
|>Just because a site advertises a connection to, say, .edu in the UUCP
|>maps does not mean that they are willing to gateway mail from the Internet
|>to UUCP.
|
|But a site advertising a connection to .UUCP does.
A site advertising a connection to .UUCP says that it is willing to handle
any mail from UUCP going to the .UUCP domain. That's all. Seems to me
those sites end up being something like "default" smarthosts if you choose
not to use the full maps. But the maps still say nothing about the Internet.
Why do you keep posting only to comp.bbs.waffle, when this discussion has
nothing to do with Waffle?
|I keep providing [coherent arguments].
Your first reply to me was basically "You're wrong because I read the
file." That hardly seems like an argument to me, unless you think that
we're both members of Monty Python.
Followups redirected to comp.mail.uucp .
Bill
Mark Lewis
kmc...@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
> In article <1fipfu...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (Joh
> >> uusite!us...@internet.host
> >> is illegal.
> >Care to cite references for this statement? RFC-1123 specifically
[... trim ...]
> Some sites, like mine, do not have UUCP forwarders - the result of this is
> that mixed addresses end up being bounced between the leaf and my site.
> There are obviously cases where it is to be avoided if at all possible.
i take it then that
wplace!mle...@cssnet.uucp
is as illegal as
mlewis%wpl...@cssnet.uucp or mlewis%wplace%css...@wolves.etc.etc
????
i've read several articles that have said the % hacks are to be avoided
as well.... what's the scoop??? if a site is trying to get on the maps,
and trying to get set up so that he can handle the software, news,
ect... how can it be done?? sounds like (and is) a catch 22... my feed
site has finally been entered in the maps so half of my "problem" has
been taken care of... actually, i think that that was part of the
problem, also.... one non-mapped site feeding another non-mapped site...
now i'm waiting on my map entry to come back and also information on
getting registered in, what a lot of you say, a real domain...
)\/(ark
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Mark Lewis * DA-CON Consultants -- Creating Solutions since 1985 *
FIFESNet 20:0/0 ~!duke!wolves!cssnet!wplace!mlewis UUCP
FIDONet 1:3634/12 mle...@lee.cerf.fred.net USENet
USENet->FIDONet Mark....@f12.n3634.z1.fidonet.org
The Company is mine... The Words are mine...
The Thoughts are mine... The System is mine...
Bill Fenner
|They want to be part of the largest net in the world and not accept any
|responsibility for running it?
Sorry, "they" who? "They" J. Random Internet site? And which net are you
talking about? The Internet? The unnamed mail network which is the
combination of all of FidoNet, the Internet, the UUCP network, BITNET, etc...?
|"Have to get permission first?"
|That's a good idea, I suppose, but I don't recall seeing such in any RFC...
Well, the point is that if you don't ask someone if you can use someone else
as a gateway, you shouldn't be surprised if they get mad at you when they find
out that you're the reason their phone bills just doubled.
|People on the Internet can just pick an arbitrary place to send all their
|UUCP mail... happens all the time...
Can... but shouldn't. Let's say someone picks psuvax1.cs.psu.edu as their
place to send all their UUCP mail. After all, it used to be a major
UUCP<>BITNET gateway, and is still listed in the UUCP maps as a reasonably
well connected site. Since there's no need to ask for permission, just go
ahead and send your mail, right? Well, it'll most likely get bounced or
bit-bucketed; psuvax1 stopped doing UUCP gatewaying for anyone outside of
Penn State's college of science some time ago.
|For what it's
|worth, I've had mail bounce from Internet->Internet on a "host not found in
|domain x" error, when it did in fact exist... we're not just talking about
|the forwarding of UUCP-addressed mail here.
Yes, there are Internet sites which are configured improperly. It's sometimes
hard to get things working well when many vendors ship a 4-year old copy of
sendmail. That doesn't have much of anything to do with the current discussion.
|But, why not have a concept of a "smarthost" for Internet mailers?
Because the whole concept of the DNS was that everyone would get registered,
if only with an MX. Since registration in the .US domain is free and easy, and
registering your own domain name is free and slightly more difficult, there's
no excuse for any UUCP-only site not to have a domain name.
You say that people who call themselves authoritative because they run
pathalias and can look up MX records are doing a disservice. If they keep
their UUCP maps up to date, then they are completely authoritative, and the
concept of a "smart-host" to that system is essentially meaningless - there
is nothing more authoritative than the UUCP maps for the UUCP pseudo-domain,
or DNS MX or A records for DNS-registered systems.
Bill
John Stanley
>i take it then that
>
> wplace!mle...@cssnet.uucp
>
>is as illegal as
>
> mlewis%wpl...@cssnet.uucp or mlewis%wplace%css...@wolves.etc.etc
Yes, both are just as (not) illegal. Assuming, of course, that you
didn't mean to put wolves in the .etc domain. And that cssnet knows the
name "wplace" as being local, uucp. And that wolves knows that cssnet is
local, uucp.
>i've read several articles that have said the % hacks are to be avoided
>as well.... what's the scoop???
If you can avoid them, do. If you can't, then you can't.
Robert Coe
> In article <ByxIn...@cs.psu.edu> fen...@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill
> Fenner) writes:
> >A site advertising a connection to .UUCP says that it is willing to handle
> >any mail from UUCP going to the .UUCP domain.
Keep in mind that there's no such thing as "the .UUCP domain". So if "adver-
tising a connection to .UUCP" means anything sensible, it must mean that the
site runs "pathalias" (or some equivalent map reader) and is therefore able
to find a usable path to any registered UUCP site.
> That isn't a gateway. Almost every UUCP site is set up to handle mail
> going from UUCP to UUCP. Every UUCP site I have set up is capable of
> that. Why isn't almost every site listed in the "gateway" list?
Every UUCP site can handle a full bang path, stripping off its own name and
sending the message on to the next site. But not every UUCP site can find
the path necessary to forward a message to anysite.UUCP. Mine can't, for ex-
ample; I don't have the bandwith to receive the map updates or the disk space
to store the maps. When a site like mine receives a message addressed to
anysite.UUCP and anysite doesn't happen to be only one hop away, it has only
two options: bounce the message or kick it upstairs to a smarter site. In
the Waffle world sites like mine may be the rule rather than the exception.
BTW, UUNET (being in the business of providing UUCP connections) naturally
talks via UUCP only to its paying customers. When someone deliberately
routes a message via UUNET that could/should have gone some other way, the
burden falls on one or two UUNET customers, not on UUNET itself. So when
UUNET argues that they shouldn't bear the whole routing burden, they're look-
ing out for their customers' welfare. Since I'm one of them, I'm glad they
feel that way. :^)
___ _ - Bob
/__) _ / / ) _ _
(_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ b...@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265
daw...@willard.uucp
> In article <BwRgVB...@willard.UUCP> daw...@willard.UUCP writes:
> |They want to be part of the largest net in the world and not accept any
> |responsibility for running it?
>
> Sorry, "they" who? "They" J. Random Internet site? And which net are you
> talking about? The Internet? The unnamed mail network which is the
> combination of all of FidoNet, the Internet, the UUCP network, BITNET, etc...
I was referring to "The" Internet... the one that starts with I and which
attempts to tell everyone what is correct (via RFC documents), and which is
made up of many, many sites that fairly well ignore many of the suggestions
in the RFC's. In particular, I was referring to sites that want Internet
connectivity, and furthermore accept requests for UUCP connections from
those who cannot afford to be directly on the Internet, yet refuse to accept
that it is they (each and every sysadmin of each and every Internet site),
who should make email to and from their UUCP friends WORK.
> |"Have to get permission first?"
> |That's a good idea, I suppose, but I don't recall seeing such in any RFC...
>
> Well, the point is that if you don't ask someone if you can use someone else
> as a gateway, you shouldn't be surprised if they get mad at you when they fin
> out that you're the reason their phone bills just doubled.
So, they should ask THEIR mail feed systems to do filtered mail delivery.
> |People on the Internet can just pick an arbitrary place to send all their
> |UUCP mail... happens all the time...
>
> Can... but shouldn't. Let's say someone picks psuvax1.cs.psu.edu as their
> place to send all their UUCP mail. After all, it used to be a major
> UUCP<>BITNET gateway, and is still listed in the UUCP maps as a reasonably
> well connected site. Since there's no need to ask for permission, just go
> ahead and send your mail, right? Well, it'll most likely get bounced or
> bit-bucketed; psuvax1 stopped doing UUCP gatewaying for anyone outside of
> Penn State's college of science some time ago.
There ought to be a universally available (easily accessible to both UUCP
and Internet connected sites) means of determining which systems are willing
to provide gateway services between the Internet and the "UUCP-net".
> |For what it's
> |worth, I've had mail bounce from Internet->Internet on a "host not found in
> |domain x" error, when it did in fact exist... we're not just talking about
> |the forwarding of UUCP-addressed mail here.
>
> Yes, there are Internet sites which are configured improperly. It's sometime
> hard to get things working well when many vendors ship a 4-year old copy of
> sendmail. That doesn't have much of anything to do with the current discussi
It has everything to do with the discussion. Reasoning for MX over pathalias
includes "it works so much better." Does it really? I don't think so. Why?
Because so many are using old, out-of-date mail delivery software.
> |But, why not have a concept of a "smarthost" for Internet mailers?
>
> Because the whole concept of the DNS was that everyone would get registered,
> if only with an MX. Since registration in the .US domain is free and easy, a
> registering your own domain name is free and slightly more difficult, there's
> no excuse for any UUCP-only site not to have a domain name.
You'll NEVER have the case where EVERYONE is registered in MX. Even so, the
MX system could soon be overwhelmed by the load of systems joining one domain
or another. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong.. but I don't see how this system
of managing email routing is any better (by itself) than pathalias in its
management of system resources or in its ability to properly route email.
> You say that people who call themselves authoritative because they run
> pathalias and can look up MX records are doing a disservice. If they keep
> their UUCP maps up to date, then they are completely authoritative, and the
> concept of a "smart-host" to that system is essentially meaningless - there
> is nothing more authoritative than the UUCP maps for the UUCP pseudo-domain,
> or DNS MX or A records for DNS-registered systems.
>
> Bill
The maps and the MX records are truly authoritative. Convincing Internet
sites that routing to sites in the UUCP pseudo-domain is possible, despite
"no" response from DNS queries, should be an interesting trick. What's
required? IDA-Sendmail, smail, or some other software that does appropriate
mail routing. Are a substantial number of systems that are set up as
DNServers running mail delivery daemons that perform UUCP routing (a la
pathalias)? Is it only my own poor luck to come across several that are
apparently not?
Not. Hence my earlier comments on an apparent lack of responsibility.
Internet sysadmins have not yet been convinced that proper routing of
email is a matter of responsible networking, or they would surely take it
upon themselves to set up sites (which already do name service resolution)
to also perform pathalias routing. Software to do that is available, and
is relatively easy to configure... What's the big deal?
[ Note: The topic has little to do with Waffle, and perhaps would be of
interest to some outside our little circle, so I've added
comp.mail.misc to the newsgroup header, and directed follow-ups
to comp.mail.misc. It does transcend simple discussion of UUCP
mail, yes? ]
George W. Hayduke
> >Why do you keep posting only to comp.bbs.waffle, when this discussion has
> >nothing to do with Waffle?
>
> If it had nothing to do with Waffle, it wouldn't have started here.
It no longer has anything to do with Waffle. Go elsewhere.
Fred Polsky v1.0, who has been known to handle under George.
"This is Usenet. Facts are irrelevant here."
The Fredbox +1 907 344 8437 sys...@freds.cojones.com Anchorage, Alaska
Sean "Bandwidth" Ryan's favorite BBS, with lots of neat texts and lunatics.
David Douthitt
| Because the whole concept of the DNS was that everyone would get registered,
| if only with an MX. Since registration in the .US domain is free and easy, a
| registering your own domain name is free and slightly more difficult, there's
| no excuse for any UUCP-only site not to have a domain name.
Oh goodie, I get to jump into the fray :-)
"registration in the .us domain is...easy" ?? NOT around here... local
Internet sites don't want ANYTHING to do with other uucp hosts, either
because they're just stingy nits or because they only want to support
sites related to the company who owns the host.
uwvax (University of Wisconsin) won't even consider a normal uucp
connect to them - and have tried at least once to sever ties to
heurikon and gorgon. uakiri and related don't know how (or perhaps
don't WANT to) support UUCP sites...
The nearest MX'er would be a long distance connect for whoever
provided the service.
So, would everyone stop pretending that finding a MX'er is as easy
as looking under 'M' in the Yellow Pages? Sheesh.
--
UUCP: ....!fullfeed.com!ruth!rat | Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253
InterNet: r...@ruth.UUCP | 80Megs+ of Usenet/Fido programs!
Fidonet: David Douthitt 1:121/23 |
"...because appealing to the masses has | Files available more ways than
never appealed to us." | any other BBS in America!
Files via: anon uucp, Fidonet FREQ, mail to archive...@ruth.uucp, etc.
Bill Fenner
|fen...@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes:
|| Because the whole concept of the DNS was that everyone would get registered,
|| if only with an MX. Since registration in the .US domain is free and easy, a
|| registering your own domain name is free and slightly more difficult, there's
|| no excuse for any UUCP-only site not to have a domain name.
|
Yup.
|The nearest MX'er would be a long distance connect for whoever
|provided the service.
An MX'er doesn't necessarily have to be directly connected to the site it is
MX'ing for. Any Internet site that can get mail to you *somehow* can be your
MX'er.
Bill
Stu Labovitz
> fen...@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes:
> > There is no way to register yourself as an Internet->UUCP gateway; therefor
> > there is no way to find such a gateway short of asking random postmasters.
>
> That last bit illustrates in graphic detail that the Internet is the wrong
> place to go for email services! One-way routing? How wonderfully useful.
_This_ is the specific reason for obtaining a FQDN in the Internet DNS and
having an MX record. The MX record provides the routing information for
any Internet host to send email to your host, even if it is really a
uucp-only system. Get a domain from the appropriate domain-registration
authorities (either regi...@nic.ddn.mil or coo...@isi.edu), register a
fully-qualified domain name for your host (to include HINFO and MX records
in the DNS database of your primary nameserver), and stop having problems!
Stuart L Labovitz Internet: s...@valinor.mythical.com
(insert standard disclaimer here) UUCP: uunet!valinor!stu
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side,
and it holds the universe together. --- Carl Zwanzig
=============================================================================
David Keegel
>There is no way to register yourself as an Internet->UUCP gateway
Wouldn't:
*.UUCP. IN MX 500 my.host.domain.
in the DNS do this?
Apologies if this has already been answered -- my news seems to be a bit
slow (like 3-4 days) somewhere upstream.
--
David Keegel Home: <d...@boombox.apana.org.au> Tel: +61 3 593-1460
Work: <d...@bby.com.au> Fax: 614-8742 Tel: 614-8922
Bill Fenner
|In <Byw7M...@cs.psu.edu> fen...@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes:
|>There is no way to register yourself as an Internet->UUCP gateway
|
|Wouldn't:
| *.UUCP. IN MX 500 my.host.domain.
|in the DNS do this?
No; you shouldn't put top-level records in your own name server. They might
or might not end up getting picked up by the top-level name servers. Plus,
if they did get picked up by the root name servers, do you really want *every*
piece of mail from the Internet to the .UUCP pseudo-domain going through your
machine? (Hint: psuvax1 stopped being the BITNET->.UUCP gateway because it
was getting overloaded, and BITNET is orders of magnitude smaller than the
Internet...)
Bill
Stephen C. Trier
> *.UUCP. IN MX 500 my.host.domain.
>in the DNS do this?
No. .UUCP does not exist as a real domain. You would have to legitimize
it as a domain, which is something that the IAB/IETF/NIC folks would really
want to avoid. I think I agree with them.
.UUCP is just a routing hack that tells local mailers to try to use UUCP
to talk to a host, just as many sites use .BITNET to specify that BITNET
should be used for delivery. Neither one is legitimized on the Internet.
It has the same status as the frequent VMS convention of forming Internet
addresses like IN%""tr...@ins.cwru.edu"" -- It's a local convention, used
in many localities, but nothing more.
--
Stephen Trier "We want to offer you a price that you
Network software type just can't afford to take advantage of."
Case Western Reserve University - Sales blurb from HSC Software
tr...@ins.cwru.edu
Mark Lewis
sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
> In article <NV4DVB...@wplace.UUCP> wplace!mle...@cssnet.UUCP writes:
> >i take it then that
> > wplace!mle...@cssnet.uucp
> >is as illegal as
> >
> > mlewis%wpl...@cssnet.uucp or mlewis%wplace%css...@wolves.etc.etc
>
> Yes, both are just as (not) illegal. Assuming, of course, that you
> didn't mean to put wolves in the .etc domain.
actually, i didn't mean that wolves was in the .etc domain... i didn't
know there was a .etc domain... what i was attempting to show was the
multiple % hacks...
mlewis%wpl...@cssnet.uucp
mlewis%wplace%cssnet@wolves.<whatever>
mlewis%wplace%cssnet%wol...@duke.duke.edu (or whatever it is)
do these all resolve to the same destination?? the only difference
between the last one and the bangpath i used to post is the % hacks
have replaced the !'s and everything is reversed -=B-)
> And that cssnet knows the
> name "wplace" as being local, uucp. And that wolves knows that cssnet is
> local, uucp.
yes, that is true for the situation here...
> >i've read several articles that have said the % hacks are to be avoided
> >as well.... what's the scoop???
>
> If you can avoid them, do. If you can't, then you can't.
<<GRIN>>... sounds almost like the way most things are done anyway -=B-)
Tony DeBari
>In article <e80RVB...@1776.COM> b...@1776.COM (Robert Coe) writes:
>>Suppose someone were to propose that rather than have the .UUCP notation die
>>out, it should be formalized as a "real" domain. Aside from the obvious
>>problem that existing mail programs handle this notation in several mutually
>>inconsistent ways, why would it be such a bad idea?
>It is not a bad idea at all, but it has already been done.
>It's called .ORG, .EDU, .COM, .INT, and .<YourCountry>.
>How would registering under .UUCP be different from registering under any
>other domain?
Ok, but consider my site, ssc60.sbwk.nj.us, a few-user Waffle iron owned
and operated by a private individual (i.e. me).
It's not an "organization" per se.
It's not a company or other type of commercial site.
It's not an educational institution.
It's not international (is that what .INT is for?)
The only real domain left is .<MyCountry> (.US), which is based on a
geographic hierarchy. If I move out of South BrunsWicK, NJ, I have
to register a new domain name. Yes, it's free and easy, but I'd rather
not have to do it more than once. And I'm fortunate in that my account
with UUNET means not having to find another forwarder.
What would be wrong with a .PRI domain for unaffiliated, private sites?
Everyone has at least an MX record in the DNS, it doesn't imply a specific
transfer protocol like .UUCP, and there is no geographic hierarchy so a
site can be physically moved without having to re-register its domain name.
Comments? Flames?
--
Tony DeBari FQDN: to...@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us CI$: 73117,452
UUCP: ...!uunet!ssc60!tonyd *P*: GHRW14B
a.k.a. Skip Bowler, captain of USENET Fantasy Bowling League Team 9.
Robert Coe
> Unfortunately, in DNS, having a wildcard MX ... will mean that ALL mail to
> *.UUCP will go to the one site. To further complicate matters, there is no
> .UUCP DNS registrar, and I don't think there ever should be. The .UUCP
> hack should just die a slow, painful, agonizing death, to be replaced by
> more sane domainized addresses. (like .edu, .com, .us, etc)
Suppose someone were to propose that rather than have the .UUCP notation die
out, it should be formalized as a "real" domain. Aside from the obvious
problem that existing mail programs handle this notation in several mutually
inconsistent ways, why would it be such a bad idea? Presumably no one site
would have to serve as the primary name server for the whole domain, any more
than one site has to do it today for any one of the existing domains (.COM,
.EDU, .US, etc.). You could even allow subdomains (Foo.Bar.UUCP), which are
forbidden under current rules, and handle them exactly as they are handled
under existing domains today.
Normally the advice given to Wafflers and other small, independent UUCP sites
is to register in the .US domain. A .UUCP domain could function in a manner
almost identical to .US (with most sites being pointed to by MX records), but
without the geographical implications. I've never been convinced that geo-
graphical site names are such a great idea anyway. For example, when someone
moves to another part of the country, he may have to find a new UUCP connec-
tion, but why should he necessarily have to change the name of his site? If
he were registered in the .UUCP domain, he wouldn't have to.
Stephen C. Trier
>out, it should be formalized as a "real" domain. Aside from the obvious
>problem that existing mail programs handle this notation in several mutually
>inconsistent ways, why would it be such a bad idea?
It is not a bad idea at all, but it has already been done.
It's called .ORG, .EDU, .COM, .INT, and .<YourCountry>.
How would registering under .UUCP be different from registering under any
other domain?
--
morpheus
> _This_ is the specific reason for obtaining a FQDN in the Internet DNS and
> having an MX record. The MX record provides the routing information for
> any Internet host to send email to your host, even if it is really a
> uucp-only system. Get a domain from the appropriate domain-registration
> authorities (either regi...@nic.ddn.mil or coo...@isi.edu), register a
> fully-qualified domain name for your host (to include HINFO and MX records
> in the DNS database of your primary nameserver), and stop having problems!
Okay, question... anyone know of any system willing to give me an MX record
for free?
morp...@entropy.mcds.com ("morph") | A name changes toys into tools..
Obsolete diety for hire. Cheap. | - Skinny Puppy
Robert Coe
> >Suppose someone were to propose that rather than have the .UUCP notation
> >ous problem that existing mail programs handle this notation in several
> >mutually inconsistent ways, why would it be such a bad idea?
>
> It is not a bad idea at all, but it has already been done.
>
> It's called .ORG, .EDU, .COM, .INT, and .<YourCountry>.
>
> How would registering under .UUCP be different from registering under any
> other domain?
As it happens, I answered that question in the part of the article that Mr
Trier didn't quote. Perhaps he didn't read that far.
Stephen C. Trier
>As it happens, I answered that question in the part of the article that Mr
>Trier didn't quote. Perhaps he didn't read that far.
Ah, I did read that far. In fact, I read the entire article and failed to
see an explanation of why the current system didn't satisfy you. Let me
rephrase my question this way: If you don't like the geographical references
in the .US domain (and I think you have a valid complaint there!), why not
register under .ORG or .COM?
Perhaps you should consider, rather than attempting to insult me, that my
failure to understand your point might mean that poor small-brained me (and,
perhaps, many others with similarly small brains) needs a better explanation
of said point.
Here's the question: What would legitimizing .UUCP offer that the current
domain system does not offer? Try to answer clearly so that I can understand.
(By the way, I do like the .PRI suggestion from another poster. The current
convention seems to allow for private sites in either .COM or .ORG, at the
owner's preference, which, while admittedly not ideal, does work acceptably.
Maybe one solution would be to create a .pri.us domain, for people who don't
want .com or .org, but who also dislike geographical naming.)
Christopher Davis
m> == morpheus <morpheus>
Stu> Get a domain from the appropriate domain-registration authorities
Stu> (either regi...@nic.ddn.mil or coo...@isi.edu), register a
Stu> fully-qualified domain name for your host (to include HINFO and MX
Stu> records in the DNS database of your primary nameserver), and stop
Stu> having problems!
m> Okay, question... anyone know of any system willing to give me an MX
m> record for free?
The US Domain registrar (us-d...@isi.edu, as I recall) can give you an MX
record in the "host.city.st.us" form, for free, and will even run the
nameservers for you. It's your responsibility to find a willing site to do
the actual MXing, though if you're already getting a feed from an
Internet-connected site, that's usually easy...
--
Christopher K. Davis | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<c...@eff.org> EFF #14 | for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF | Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665 [CKD1] | --Peter da Silva <pe...@ferranti.com>
Leslie Mikesell
>out, it should be formalized as a "real" domain. Aside from the obvious
>problem that existing mail programs handle this notation in several mutually
>inconsistent ways, why would it be such a bad idea?
I think it could have worked if it had been done that way from the start
and the uucp maps and the associated DNS information could have been
made consistant with a single input, but it's too late now since every
sensible mailer has built-in knowledge of .uucp. Someone could still
set up *.uucp.org if they felt like organizing.
Les Mikesell
l...@chinet.chi.il.us
Lance A. Brown
> Suppose someone were to propose that rather than have the .UUCP notation die
> out, it should be formalized as a "real" domain. Aside from the obvious
> problem that existing mail programs handle this notation in several mutually
> inconsistent ways, why would it be such a bad idea? Presumably no one site
Well, getting everyone to updgrade/modify their software to deal with an
"official" .UUCP would be a nightmare. There is a LOT of inertia to
overcome.
> graphical site names are such a great idea anyway. For example, when someone
> moves to another part of the country, he may have to find a new UUCP connec-
> tion, but why should he necessarily have to change the name of his site? If
> he were registered in the .UUCP domain, he wouldn't have to.
How hard would it be to change your FQDN if you move? You would have to
distribute your new email address to everyone, but that already has to be
done when you switch jobs or attend a different university if you don't
have a UUCP site.
I'm curious. Does anyone _know_ what is involved with changing your FQDN
in the .US domain?
Lance
--
The Full Circle
Domain: la...@circle.raleigh.nc.us (Lance A. Brown) [ preferred ]
Bangs: ...!wolves!circle!lance
Martin P. Ibert
> there is no .UUCP DNS registrar, and I don't think there ever should be.
> replaced by more sane domainized addresses. (like .edu, .com, .us, etc)
Okay, NOW you are kidding, aren't you? I mean, to say .edu is a SANE
domainized address must be joke. The only sane top-level domain on your
list is .us, all other deserve the same fast (!) death that .uucp and .bitnet
deserve.
(Yes, I KNOW there is a difference, and I COULDN'T CARE LESS.)
--
( ) ____ Martin Ibert/Westendallee 100 d/D-1000 Berlin 19/+4930-3056541
| |_^_|O |_ --------------------------------------------------------------
( Starlight| Looks and youth aren't everything/Experience is a quality that
/\_Express_| counts for a lot/The sad thing 'bout experience is by the time
//o ()()() o you got it/It's usually all you've got. ------ Richard Stilgoe
Willard Dawson
>In article <PJsTVB...@1776.COM> b...@1776.COM (Robert Coe) writes:
>>As it happens, I answered that question in the part of the article that Mr
>>Trier didn't quote. Perhaps he didn't read that far.
>
>Ah, I did read that far. In fact, I read the entire article and failed to
>see an explanation of why the current system didn't satisfy you. Let me
>rephrase my question this way: If you don't like the geographical references
>in the .US domain (and I think you have a valid complaint there!), why not
>register under .ORG or .COM?
>
>Perhaps you should consider, rather than attempting to insult me, that my
>failure to understand your point might mean that poor small-brained me (and,
>perhaps, many others with similarly small brains) needs a better explanation
>of said point.
Chill, dude. I don't see any reason to shoot your guns. Where did Stephen
Trier attempt to insult you? Perhaps you're reading more "between the
lines" than I've been able to do.
>Here's the question: What would legitimizing .UUCP offer that the current
>domain system does not offer? Try to answer clearly so that I can understand.
Trying to avoid unnecessary flamage is a good idea. It's also a good idea
to ask additional questions to fully understand the original intent of the
poster to whom you are following-up. If, by careful selection of questions,
you manage to point out that the original poster has overlooked some vital
elements in his essay, then you've accomplished your point without damaging
any egos. Even if one is insulted, proper netiquette would suggest that
he conducts his follow-ups via email, no? The added traffic is noise, as
it lies outside the charter for the newsgroup... as this paragraph is
100% noise, perhaps I should take my own advice and quit typing...
>(By the way, I do like the .PRI suggestion from another poster. The current
>convention seems to allow for private sites in either .COM or .ORG, at the
>owner's preference, which, while admittedly not ideal, does work acceptably.
>Maybe one solution would be to create a .pri.us domain, for people who don't
>want .com or .org, but who also dislike geographical naming.)
Likewise, I think the .PRI suggestion is right on the money. Maybe that
was a poor choice of words... As I've been pre-guessing in email to one
or more persons, one reason we may not see the quick introduction of the
.PRI domain is that there is little incentive for it to be done by any of
the present players in the domain-services companies. (I do hope I'm
just being cynically pessimistic...). I still think it's a neat idea,
and would fill an ever-growing niche in the network. The number of private
systems that want to have access to news and email should continue to
sky-rocket as new and better software becomes available.
>
>--
>Stephen Trier "We want to offer you a price that you
>Network software type just can't afford to take advantage of."
>Case Western Reserve University - Sales blurb from HSC Software
>tr...@ins.cwru.edu
--
Willard Dawson, BellSouth Advanced Networks, 1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Ste. 880
Atlanta, GA 30342, Voice: +1 404 303 2343, UUCP: gatech!vdbsan!hobbes!dawson
Internet -> X.400: /G=W/S=DAWSON/O=BSAN/ADMD=BELLSOUTH/C=US/@sprint.com
Percent hack: dawson%vdb...@gatech.edu :: Standard disclaimer applies.
Steve Harding KA6ETB
>b...@1776.COM (Robert Coe) writes:
]...[
>I'm curious. Does anyone _know_ what is involved with changing your FQDN
>in the .US domain?
Should be no different from getting registered there in the first place.
Just reapply, and let them know that the previous is null and void.
s
--
--
play:ste...@grafex.Cupertino.CA.US 408.252.0578 work:har...@nas.nasa.gov
A prince trapped in the body of a dirty old man.
La Monte Yarroll
...
>The only real domain left is .<MyCountry> (.US), which is based on a
>geographic hierarchy. If I move out of South BrunsWicK, NJ, I have
>to register a new domain name.
Not true. I live in Sandy Bay, Tasmania (Australia). My home machine
is baqaqi.chi.il.us. This works just fine. My MX forwarder just
routes my mail a little further.
Just pick someplace in the US with which you'd like to be associated,
and use that for your domain.
...
>What would be wrong with a .PRI domain for unaffiliated, private sites?
>Everyone has at least an MX record in the DNS, it doesn't imply a specific
>transfer protocol like .UUCP, and there is no geographic hierarchy so a
>site can be physically moved without having to re-register its domain name.
>Comments? Flames?
That's essentially what the .us domain is supposed to be for. I'm
sure there's something written by Postel somewhere that explains why
he decided to subdivide the .us domain the way he did.
BTW, it IS permissible to have a non-geographic subdomain in the .us
heirarchy, though I don't know of one. For example, we
(/usr/group/chicago) could have set up the domain park .ugc.chi.il.us,
but we already had a lot of sites registered before we found out we
were allowed to do that. The main constraint against having
non-geogrphic domain parks in .us is the requirement of having no more
than a few machines in the domain at each site. Already, we have a
few private sites with about 10 machines (some people have nothing
better to do with their money :-).
If you are really keen on having a non-geographic catch-all domain,
you might approach the us-domain people with a request for
registration in .nowhere.us, or something like it. Hmm... is there a
town in the US by the name of "nowhere"? :-)
--
La Monte H. Yarroll Home: pi...@baqaqi.chi.il.us
Work: pi...@hilbert.maths.utas.edu.au
AKA: pi...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
Once upon a time: postm...@clout.chi.il.us
Lord Yertle
la...@Circle.Raleigh.NC.US (Lance A. Brown) writes:
>How hard would it be to change your FQDN if you move? You would have to
>distribute your new email address to everyone, but that already has to be
>done when you switch jobs or attend a different university if you don't
>have a UUCP site.
>
>I'm curious. Does anyone _know_ what is involved with changing your FQDN
>in the .US domain?
I did this a few weeks ago. You send in another registration to the
.US-meisters; they'll change your old name to point to your new MX
forwarder if you want. They ask you to eliminate the old domain name
at some point. It's pretty easy. The messy bit is keeping your mail
software working through the transition.
--jh
--
John Hood, Marlboro student and non-smoker-- Marlboro VT
jh...@smoke.marlboro.vt.us
Tony DeBari
>to...@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us (Tony DeBari) writes:
>...
>>The only real domain left is .<MyCountry> (.US), which is based on a
>>geographic hierarchy. If I move out of South BrunsWicK, NJ, I have
>>to register a new domain name.
>Not true. I live in Sandy Bay, Tasmania (Australia). My home machine
>is baqaqi.chi.il.us. This works just fine. My MX forwarder just
>routes my mail a little further.
Dumb question: How did you get a .us domain name when you live in
Tasmania? Did you move there from Chicago?
>Just pick someplace in the US with which you'd like to be associated,
>and use that for your domain.
Of course, I can tell the folks at ISI anything I want as long as my MX
knows where I really am. But doesn't this defeat the purpose of having
a geographic hierarchy for domain names?
>...
>>What would be wrong with a .PRI domain for unaffiliated, private sites?
>>Everyone has at least an MX record in the DNS, it doesn't imply a specific
>>transfer protocol like .UUCP, and there is no geographic hierarchy so a
>>site can be physically moved without having to re-register its domain name.
>>Comments? Flames?
>That's essentially what the .us domain is supposed to be for. I'm
>sure there's something written by Postel somewhere that explains why
>he decided to subdivide the .us domain the way he did.
Where might I find this information? I'm very curious about how the
.us domain came into being.
>BTW, it IS permissible to have a non-geographic subdomain in the .us
>heirarchy, though I don't know of one. For example, we
>(/usr/group/chicago) could have set up the domain park .ugc.chi.il.us,
>but we already had a lot of sites registered before we found out we
>were allowed to do that. [...]
I have seen domain parks in .us also (I think there is one in Atlanta,
GA). But the domain name is still site.subdomain.atl.ga.us. This isn't
a strictly non-geographic domain name. I have yet to see a site called
site.domain.us (without the city and state components).
>If you are really keen on having a non-geographic catch-all domain,
>you might approach the us-domain people with a request for
>registration in .nowhere.us, or something like it. Hmm... is there a
>town in the US by the name of "nowhere"? :-)
There's gotta be. :-)
I don't know that I'm "really keen" on anything at this point. The .us
domain is serving its purpose well and demand for a new top-level domain
for private sites is probably not great enough to actually get one started.
I certainly don't have the resources to do it and I'm in no position to
ask that someone else do it for me. It's just that the geographic nature
of .us never did sit well with me (since none of the other big domains are
geographic) and I thought a analog to .com and .edu for private sites might
be worth exploring.
Kevin Darcy
The problem is that if every Tom, Dick and Harriet with a PC registers as a
second-level name under .pri, then you end up with a DNS zone containing
literally millions of RR's, which are all being queried constantly. Massive
capacity and adminstrative problems. Zone transfers would be a bitch. Lots of
name conflicts. In short, the idea makes for short, easy-to-type mail
addresses, but breaks the scalability of global DNS.
On the other end of the spectrum, I think the .us policy of geographical
subdivisions is pretty silly: it lengthens mail addresses for no particularly
good reason -- many if not most folks simply don't CARE what city, or in some
cases, even what state or country a host is in, as long as the mail flows. So
you ultimately end up with situations like the guy who moved from Chicago to
Tasmania, but didn't bother to change his chi.il.us MX. What useful value does
all that verbiage serve then?
I think two layers of domains is a reasonable compromise between these
extremes. When you add that second layer, of course, then each subdomain
is a "mail park", and could validly be registered under good old .org, e.g.
mn.org or mi.org, instead of having to create a new top-level .pri domain.
- Kevin
Kenji Rikitake
] Huh? The advantage of .com and .edu is that each sub-level domain is a
] logical organizational unit.
[rest deleted by Rikitake]
I agree. This is why I applied for a *.org domain, even though I could
obtain a *.jp domain. The NIC is fair to non-US applicants (as long as
you are connected to a NIC-known mail-forwarding site, e.g.
uunet.uu.net) so I had no problem to get it.
One thing those who are in the USA should be aware of is, however,
that those non-country domains are considered as old conventions which
should be abolished soon - by many non-US Internet administrators.
// Kenji
--
Kenji Rikitake, cyberspace samurai
<ke...@rcac.astem.or.jp> <ke...@rd.macrofield.or.jp> <...!uunet!reseau!kenji>
peter da silva
> Here's the question: What would legitimizing .UUCP offer that the current
> domain system does not offer? Try to answer clearly so that I can understand.
Because the alternatives for a site with no obvious affiliation are currently
.com and .us. The problem with .com is that it carries the assumption that you
are carrying on a business. Many people would rather not give the local phone
company YET ANOTHER excuse to charge a hobby at business rates.
--
Peter da Silva `-_-'
Ferranti International Controls Corporation 'U`
Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012 USA
+1 713 274 5180 "Zure otsoa besarkatu al duzu gaur?"
Stu Labovitz
> s...@valinor.mythical.com (Stu Labovitz) writes:
> > [...] Get a domain from the appropriate domain-registration
> > authorities (either regi...@nic.ddn.mil or coo...@isi.edu), register a
> > fully-qualified domain name for your host (to include HINFO and MX records
> > in the DNS database of your primary nameserver), and stop having problems!
> Okay, question... anyone know of any system willing to give me an MX record
> for free?
Try posting in news.admin.misc and asking for a site to volunteer. There
were some people in that group earlier this year who offered to be an MX
host for anyone (just to be their MX site, _not_ to be their connection
onto the Internet). Sorry, but I didn't save their names or addresses,
but I'm sure that some kind souls would respond. Good Luck, and get that
domain name!
Lance A. Brown
> >I'm curious. Does anyone _know_ what is involved with changing your FQDN
> >in the .US domain?
>
> I did this a few weeks ago. You send in another registration to the
> .US-meisters; they'll change your old name to point to your new MX
> forwarder if you want. They ask you to eliminate the old domain name
> at some point. It's pretty easy. The messy bit is keeping your mail
> software working through the transition.
OK, now for the fun part. Finding a new MX site that is willing to forward
your mail. I'd be worried about finding an Internet site nearby UUCP-wise
that will MX for anybody.
Leslie Mikesell
>The only real domain left is .<MyCountry> (.US), which is based on a
>geographic hierarchy. If I move out of South BrunsWicK, NJ, I have
>to register a new domain name. Yes, it's free and easy, but I'd rather
>not have to do it more than once. And I'm fortunate in that my account
>with UUNET means not having to find another forwarder.
Ummm, if you have a uunet account they will help you register your
own domain name under .com or .org at no charge. If you call them
to pick up mail, it doesn't matter where you are anyway.
>What would be wrong with a .PRI domain for unaffiliated, private sites?
>Everyone has at least an MX record in the DNS, it doesn't imply a specific
>transfer protocol like .UUCP, and there is no geographic hierarchy so a
>site can be physically moved without having to re-register its domain name.
Makes sense to me, but the difference between .PRI, .COM, and .ORG seems
pretty arbitrary. Does everyone need to know if you are unorganized?
Les Mikesell
l...@chinet.chi.il.us
John F. Snyder
-> la...@Circle.Raleigh.NC.US (Lance A. Brown) writes:
->
-> >I'm curious. Does anyone _know_ what is involved with changing your FQDN
-> >in the .US domain?
->
-> I did this a few weeks ago. You send in another registration to the
-> .US-meisters; they'll change your old name to point to your new MX
-> forwarder if you want. They ask you to eliminate the old domain name
-> at some point. It's pretty easy. The messy bit is keeping your mail
-> software working through the transition.
In waffle just set the static parameter alias.
alias : new.site.name.us old.site.name.us
This will make sure any incoming mail addressed to the old name will
come into your site ok.
It is left as an exercise for the student (Math teacher speak, for "I
don't want to figure it out.") to determine ways to inform folks who
send you mail of the address change.
eo...@xocolatl.com | Practice Random Kindness /~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ /
GEnie: J.Snyder18 | * and < D A R W I N ><
CI$: 70313,3111 | \|/ Senseless Acts of Beauty \_____________/ \
Prodigy: NOT!!!! | PGP 2.0 User _l _l _l _l
peter da silva
> Okay, NOW you are kidding, aren't you? I mean, to say .edu is a SANE
> domainized address must be joke. The only sane top-level domain on your
> list is .us, all other deserve the same fast (!) death that .uucp and .bitnet
> deserve.
On the contrary, a much better route would be to nuke all the geographical
domains. All that is doing is kowtowing to the PTT monopolies in Europe.
Dan Ellison
>In <1gisdm...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> tr...@slc6.ins.cwru.edu (Stephen C. Trier) writes:
>>In article <e80RVB...@1776.COM> b...@1776.COM (Robert Coe) writes:
>>>Suppose someone were to propose that rather than have the .UUCP notation die
>>>out, it should be formalized as a "real" domain. Aside from the obvious
>>>problem that existing mail programs handle this notation in several mutually
>>>inconsistent ways, why would it be such a bad idea?
>>It is not a bad idea at all, but it has already been done.
>>It's called .ORG, .EDU, .COM, .INT, and .<YourCountry>.
>>How would registering under .UUCP be different from registering under any
>>other domain?
>Ok, but consider my site, ssc60.sbwk.nj.us, a few-user Waffle iron owned
>and operated by a private individual (i.e. me).
>It's not an "organization" per se.
>It's not a company or other type of commercial site.
>It's not an educational institution.
>It's not international (is that what .INT is for?)
>The only real domain left is .<MyCountry> (.US), which is based on a
>geographic hierarchy. If I move out of South BrunsWicK, NJ, I have
>to register a new domain name. Yes, it's free and easy, but I'd rather
>not have to do it more than once. And I'm fortunate in that my account
>with UUNET means not having to find another forwarder.
Yes, but you still have to submit a new map entry describing you path
for receiving mail after a move. IMHO, this is more work that sending
a piece of email to the MX record site requesting that they change
the delivery host (when using the .us domain that is....)
>What would be wrong with a .PRI domain for unaffiliated, private sites?
>Everyone has at least an MX record in the DNS, it doesn't imply a specific
>transfer protocol like .UUCP, and there is no geographic hierarchy so a
>site can be physically moved without having to re-register its domain name.
This could easily become unmanagable. By using the geographical domain
hierchy, you can at least get a clue as to where it is you might be
sending your packets. Fact is, that with the methods in use today,
when you make a move, you have to let somebody know where and how to
deliver packets. The farther the move the more things need to be
adjusted (domain, MX info, uucp neighbor etc.) Fortunately, it's
pretty easy to do, just take a few days to be final. Oh well, it
sure works well!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Dan Ellison, Network Spec - Computing Affairs, SIU-C |
| Southern Illinois University - Carbondale, IL 62901 |
| FAX: (618) 453-3459 - PHONE: (618) 453-6149 |
Leslie Mikesell
>Yes, but you still have to submit a new map entry describing you path
>for receiving mail after a move. IMHO, this is more work that sending
>a piece of email to the MX record site requesting that they change
>the delivery host (when using the .us domain that is....)
There is still a problem in that nearby uucp sites are forced to
forward through the internet to reach you if you are known only
by the domain name, which might be a much more expensive route
than one found by a map entry. Of course any site with enough
traffic to be concerned could set up a direct link with you anyway.
>>What would be wrong with a .PRI domain for unaffiliated, private sites?
>This could easily become unmanagable.
But maybe it's time for all the uucp sites to set up their own
second-level domain names just like everyone is always advising.
Then we'd find out how well the system really works.
Les Mikesell
l...@chinet.chi.il.us
Tony DeBari
> In article <lgXLrA1...@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us> to...@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us (Tony DeB
> >What would be wrong with a .PRI domain for unaffiliated, private sites?
> >Everyone has at least an MX record in the DNS, it doesn't imply a specific
> >transfer protocol like .UUCP, and there is no geographic hierarchy so a
> >site can be physically moved without having to re-register its domain name.
>
> The problem is that if every Tom, Dick and Harriet with a PC registers as a
> second-level name under .pri, then you end up with a DNS zone containing
> literally millions of RR's, which are all being queried constantly. Massive
> capacity and adminstrative problems. Zone transfers would be a bitch. Lots of
> name conflicts. In short, the idea makes for short, easy-to-type mail
> addresses, but breaks the scalability of global DNS.
I think you might be overestimating a bit here. Although there are
millions of PC's out there, I suspect only a small fraction of them
are, or would want to become, sites connected to "the net". Thousands
maybe, but not millions.
I do agree that there is the potential for a problem, but the same
potential exists for other top-level domains, especially .com. What
keeps .com from getting out of control (besides the fact that businesses
are failing left and right :-) ?
> On the other end of the spectrum, I think the .us policy of geographical
> subdivisions is pretty silly: it lengthens mail addresses for no particularly
> good reason -- many if not most folks simply don't CARE what city, or in some
> cases, even what state or country a host is in, as long as the mail flows. So
> you ultimately end up with situations like the guy who moved from Chicago to
> Tasmania, but didn't bother to change his chi.il.us MX. What useful value doe
> all that verbiage serve then?
My sentiments exactly.
> I think two layers of domains is a reasonable compromise between these
> extremes. When you add that second layer, of course, then each subdomain
> is a "mail park", and could validly be registered under good old .org, e.g.
> mn.org or mi.org, instead of having to create a new top-level .pri domain.
Registering in .org is fine if I'm a mail park. Or, if I can find a local
mail park to connect to, I can register as mysite.mailpark.org. If I'm
not the former and can't do the latter, I'm still stuck with .us.
Also, using states as the second layer brings us back to a geographic
domain hierarchy. Granted, site.state.{org|us|pri} is better than
site.city.state.us, but I'd still like to see a totally non-geographic
hierarchy for unaffiliated sites, much as .com is for companies.
Tony DeBari
> In article <lgXLrA1...@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us> to...@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us (Tony DeB
>
> >The only real domain left is .<MyCountry> (.US), which is based on a
> >geographic hierarchy. If I move out of South BrunsWicK, NJ, I have
> >to register a new domain name. Yes, it's free and easy, but I'd rather
> >not have to do it more than once. And I'm fortunate in that my account
> >with UUNET means not having to find another forwarder.
>
> Ummm, if you have a uunet account they will help you register your
> own domain name under .com or .org at no charge. If you call them
> to pick up mail, it doesn't matter where you are anyway.
I know that. I didn't do it because I didn't think my site qualified for
either .com (not a company) or .org (not an organization or domain park).
> >What would be wrong with a .PRI domain for unaffiliated, private sites?
> >Everyone has at least an MX record in the DNS, it doesn't imply a specific
> >transfer protocol like .UUCP, and there is no geographic hierarchy so a
> >site can be physically moved without having to re-register its domain name.
>
> Makes sense to me, but the difference between .PRI, .COM, and .ORG seems
> pretty arbitrary. Does everyone need to know if you are unorganized?
I was under the impression that .com, .org, .edu, etc. were all mutually
exclusive; companies in .com, domain parks in .org, universities in .edu,
and so forth. The "none of the above" sites all get thrown into .us, or
register in one of the others anyway. A .pri domain would be conceptually
similar to the others, except that it would be for unaffiliated sites that
don't want to be in a geographic domain hierarchy.
Tony DeBari
> In <lgXLrA1...@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us> to...@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us (Tony DeBari) wri
> >Ok, but consider my site, ssc60.sbwk.nj.us, a few-user Waffle iron owned
> >and operated by a private individual (i.e. me).
>
> >It's not an "organization" per se.
> >It's not a company or other type of commercial site.
> >It's not an educational institution.
> >It's not international (is that what .INT is for?)
>
> >The only real domain left is .<MyCountry> (.US), which is based on a
> >geographic hierarchy. If I move out of South BrunsWicK, NJ, I have
> >to register a new domain name. Yes, it's free and easy, but I'd rather
> >not have to do it more than once. And I'm fortunate in that my account
> >with UUNET means not having to find another forwarder.
>
> Yes, but you still have to submit a new map entry describing you path
> for receiving mail after a move. IMHO, this is more work that sending
> a piece of email to the MX record site requesting that they change
> the delivery host (when using the .us domain that is....)
I'm not sure I follow you here. Right now I'm registered as
ssc60.sbwk.nj.us, with uunet.uu.net (or one of their machines) as my
MX forwarder. UUNET is the only site I talk to. If I move to
Phoenix tomorrow, I have to (or should, anyway) send a new registration
to ISI chaning my name to ssc60.phx.az.us, and UUNET would still be
my forwarder. However, if I were registered (somewhere) as ssc60.pri,
I could move to anywhere without having to update any DNS records so
long as UUNET remained my forwarder. Either way, I'm in the DNS, so
a UUCP map entry is no longer necessary.
> >What would be wrong with a .PRI domain for unaffiliated, private sites?
> >Everyone has at least an MX record in the DNS, it doesn't imply a specific
> >transfer protocol like .UUCP, and there is no geographic hierarchy so a
> >site can be physically moved without having to re-register its domain name.
>
> This could easily become unmanagable. By using the geographical domain
> hierchy, you can at least get a clue as to where it is you might be
> sending your packets.
A clue that could be very misleading. I could be asking a person in
Tasmania what he thinks of Da Bears. :-)
> Fact is, that with the methods in use today,
> when you make a move, you have to let somebody know where and how to
> deliver packets. The farther the move the more things need to be
> adjusted (domain, MX info, uucp neighbor etc.)
True. That's why I have a UUNET account. No matter where I go, they
will always be my UUCP neighbor and MX forwarder. Registering a new
domain name under .us would be the only change I would need to make,
and that would be avoided with a non-geographic domain hierarchy.
> Fortunately, it's
> pretty easy to do, just take a few days to be final. Oh well, it
> sure works well!
Yes, it does! It might sound like I'm complaining, but I'm really
not. As you said, moving a site sometimes requires a lot of work to
keep the connection going. I'd just like to make it easier by
eliminating the need to re-register a domain name solely because the
site has moved.
David Keegel
>In article <N-9KrAE...@boombox.apana.org.au> d...@boombox.apana.org.au writes:
>|In <Byw7M...@cs.psu.edu> fen...@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes:
>|>There is no way to register yourself as an Internet->UUCP gateway
>|
>|Wouldn't:
>| *.UUCP. IN MX 500 my.host.domain.
>|in the DNS do this?
>No; you shouldn't put top-level records in your own name server.
I never said you'd put it in your nameserver, you get it put into the
DNS (officially). Ie: that line would just appear as is (subsitute
my.host.domain for whatever deluded host thinks it wants to be an
InterNet->.UUCP gateway) in the root zone file at nic.ddn.mil.
Of course, if there is more than one deluded site which thinks it
wants to be advertised as Internet->.UUCP gateway, just add a few more
lines, as long as they all agree on the pref so that MX-based mailers
will share the load between them.
>if they did get picked up by the root name servers, do you really want *every*
>piece of mail from the Internet to the .UUCP pseudo-domain going through your
>machine?
Hey, I never said you'd want to -- the question was, "can you do it?"
If we assume that there are n (0<n<10) sites that are prepared to accept
all mail from Internet to .UUCP which is not otherwise handled (a BIG
assumption, I know) this could, technically, be done. Can we agree
that it is theoretically possible to advertise inet->.uucp in the DNS?
I guess a technical reason why it would be a bad idea is that there are
probably some Internet sites out there whose mailers are misconfigured
enough to check MXes before handling local uucp traffic (not that they
should be asking the DNS to resolve a *.UUCP name in the first place!).
--
David Keegel Home: <d...@boombox.apana.org.au> Tel: +61 3 593-1460
Lord Yertle
la...@Circle.Raleigh.NC.US (Lance A. Brown) writes:
>OK, now for the fun part. Finding a new MX site that is willing to forward
>your mail. I'd be worried about finding an Internet site nearby UUCP-wise
>that will MX for anybody.
You have to do this before you send the (re)registration in. It's
kind of pointless otherwise, and I'm not sure they'd let you do it.
In my case, it turned out to be Dartmouth. I might have been lucky :)
(although in my case, it doesn't matter. Everything's long distance
from here, and I'm on one of the flat-rate calling plans. I could
call anywhere in the US.)
--jh
--
John Hood Cthulhu-- just imagine it!
jh...@smoke.marlboro.vt.us
Ken Hornstein
>I know that. I didn't do it because I didn't think my site qualified for
>either .com (not a company) or .org (not an organization or domain park).
I was always under the impression that .org was a catch-all for sites that
didn't fit in anything else. It's possible I'm wrong, of course. :-)
--Ken
George W. Hayduke
> ba...@pop.psu.edu (David Barr) writes:
> > there is no .UUCP DNS registrar, and I don't think there ever should be.
> > the .UUCP hack should just die a slow, painful, agonizing death, to be
> > replaced by more sane domainized addresses. (like .edu, .com, .us, etc)
>
> Okay, NOW you are kidding, aren't you? I mean, to say .edu is a SANE
> domainized address must be joke. The only sane top-level domain on your
> list is .us, all other deserve the same fast (!) death that .uucp and .bitnet
> deserve.
Don't forget to inform .sub.org that they can no longer be in .org, ok?
G'bye.
(Look at the bright side -- .arpa is gone.)
Fred Polsky v1.0, who has been known to handle under George.
"This is Usenet. Facts are irrelevant here."
The Fredbox +1 907 344 8437 sys...@freds.cojones.com Anchorage, Alaska
Sean "Bandwidth" Ryan's favorite BBS, with lots of neat texts and lunatics.
David Keegel
>It is relatively easy to set Waffle up for mail. It is relatively easy
>to find a site that will route your mail for you (sometimes this might
>be a half-dozen bangpaths down the pike, but...). It is also easy to
>define your smarthost as : myhost!hishost!bighost.
Wouldn't you just set smarthost to "hishost"? If hishost doesn't know
what to do with arbitrary mail (by implication it doesn't), it should
use bighost as a smarthost. If not, complain to postmaster@hishost.
The problem with smarthost: hishost!bighost is that mail for myneighbor
(ie: myhost!hishost!myneighbor!user) goes up to bighost. And if all
of hishost's feedees (is there a proper word for that?) as leaf nodes,
neither hishost or any of its feedees (including myhost) need to know
about pathalias or anything -- they just know who they talk to.
Bill Fenner
|The problem with smarthost: hishost!bighost is that mail for myneighbor
|(ie: myhost!hishost!myneighbor!user) goes up to bighost.
Only if you don't have your PATHS file set up properly.
Bill
Kennelmeister
> What would be wrong with a .PRI domain for unaffiliated, private sites?
> Everyone has at least an MX record in the DNS, it doesn't imply a specific
> transfer protocol like .UUCP, and there is no geographic hierarchy so a
> site can be physically moved without having to re-register its domain name.
Here in New Zealand, we use GEN as the bbs/general purpose indicator.
Please note that almost every country ( apart from the USA ) has a tail
to indicate their origin. ( ie: .AU, .NZ, .CA, .UK, .SE, .ZA,.....)
By that I mean that ALL sites have the tail, including universities,
companies and government organisations.
--
Alan Brown. (SysAdmin)
dog...@dogbox.acme.gen.nz Palmerston North
Dawghaus BBS -> +64 (6) 357-9245 New Zealand
"A wet and windy place at the bottom of the World"
Leslie Mikesell
>|The problem with smarthost: hishost!bighost is that mail for myneighbor
>|(ie: myhost!hishost!myneighbor!user) goes up to bighost.
>Only if you don't have your PATHS file set up properly.
But it will still force mail to direct neighbors of hishost to go to
bighost and back unless you also maintain path entries for those machines.
If the mailer on hishost is smart enough to resolve what it can and
pass the rest on to bighost then you are better off using hishost as
your smarthost instead of hishost!bighost.
Les Mikesell
l...@chinet.chi.il.us
Leslie Mikesell
>> own domain name under .com or .org at no charge. If you call them
>> to pick up mail, it doesn't matter where you are anyway.
>I know that. I didn't do it because I didn't think my site qualified for
>either .com (not a company) or .org (not an organization or domain park).
I thought that the only qualification involved was that you asked for
a name that isn't already being used. The people in charge of the
name services shouldn't be in the business of deciding "how commericial"
or "how organized" an entity is. The .us domain is a special case, though,
where most of the the sites are small individual machines. I understand
it's fairly hard to get a wild-card mx registered under .us.
Les Mikesell
l...@chinet.chi.il.us
Bill Fenner
|> Ummm, if you have a uunet account they will help you register your
|> own domain name under .com or .org at no charge. If you call them
|> to pick up mail, it doesn't matter where you are anyway.
|
|I know that. I didn't do it because I didn't think my site qualified for
|either .com (not a company) or .org (not an organization or domain park).
Red Beard Consulting is an extremely vague approximation of a
"company"; it's what I call myself when I'm not working for anyone
else. However, I didn't have any problem registering redbeard.com ...
Bill
Andrew M. Dunn
>Please note that almost every country ( apart from the USA ) has a tail
>to indicate their origin. ( ie: .AU, .NZ, .CA, .UK, .SE, .ZA,.....)
>By that I mean that ALL sites have the tail, including universities,
>companies and government organisations.
>
True. But, unlike the US (and, to a lesser extent, Canada) they don't
appear to insist on a geographical hierarchy.
THAT'S what people don't like about the .US domain. Or the .CA
domain.
It's difficult or impossible to justify why you want a second-level
domain. While it's true that there exist _easy_ mechanisms for getting
a domain name and MX, they almost always carry the caveat that you
get slotted into a geographical hierarchy.
And, some places (such as .UK) use second-level for the same purpose
as .COM and .EDU are used. For instance, UK.AC.OXBRIDGE or
UK.CO.WIDGETSRUS.
But they're NOT HIERARCHICAL!
--
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
: Andy Dunn <amd...@mongrel.UUCP> or <dunn...@mach1.WLU.CA> :
: "AT&T thinks Usenet is an Underground organization" - are we really? :
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
David Keegel
>In article <1gl0i3...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> tr...@slc6.ins.cwru.edu (Stephen C. Trier) writes:
>> Here's the question: What would legitimizing .UUCP offer that the current
>> domain system does not offer? Try to answer clearly so that I can understand.
>Because the alternatives for a site with no obvious affiliation are currently
>.com and .us. The problem with .com is that it carries the assumption that you
>are carrying on a business. Many people would rather not give the local phone
>company YET ANOTHER excuse to charge a hobby at business rates.
Assumption or requirement? Anyway, you don't give any arguments against
.us which I think is the appropriate place, unless your site cannot fit
into that geographical structure. If this is a problem, someone can set
up a non-geographical subdomain of .us (".pri.us" seems to be the popular
choice -- we are/were talking about priv.au for Australia).
Robert Coe
> la...@Circle.Raleigh.NC.US (Lance A. Brown) writes:
>
> >OK, now for the fun part. Finding a new MX site that is willing to
> >forward your mail. I'd be worried about finding an Internet site nearby
> >UUCP-wise that will MX for anybody.
>
> You have to do this before you send the (re)registration in. It's
> kind of pointless otherwise, and I'm not sure they'd let you do it.
There really is a "Catch 22". You need an operational MX in order to regis-
ter, but until you've registered, you can't be absolutely sure that your site
name doesn't conflict with someone else's. If you have a really good rela-
tionship with your MX site, you can at least get them to do a "whois" for
you, and this will identify a conflicting site name that has fully percolated
into the system. But until you've actually registered, you can't be sure
that someone won't beat you to the name.
___ _ - Bob
/__) _ / / ) _ _
(_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ b...@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265
Kevin Darcy
>ke...@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>> In article <lgXLrA1...@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us> to...@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us (Tony DeB
>> >What would be wrong with a .PRI domain for unaffiliated, private sites?
>> >Everyone has at least an MX record in the DNS, it doesn't imply a specific
>> >transfer protocol like .UUCP, and there is no geographic hierarchy so a
>> >site can be physically moved without having to re-register its domain name.
>>
>> The problem is that if every Tom, Dick and Harriet with a PC registers as a
>> second-level name under .pri, then you end up with a DNS zone containing
>> literally millions of RR's, which are all being queried constantly. Massive
>> capacity and adminstrative problems. Zone transfers would be a bitch. Lots of
>> name conflicts. In short, the idea makes for short, easy-to-type mail
>> addresses, but breaks the scalability of global DNS.
>
>I think you might be overestimating a bit here. Although there are
>millions of PC's out there, I suspect only a small fraction of them
>are, or would want to become, sites connected to "the net". Thousands
>maybe, but not millions.
>
>I do agree that there is the potential for a problem, but the same
>potential exists for other top-level domains, especially .com. What
>keeps .com from getting out of control (besides the fact that businesses
>are failing left and right :-) ?
It could get out of control, in theory, but whereas the average node count
for a domain in the proposed .pri domain is likely to be only slightly higher
than 1, the average node count for .com domains has traditionally been much
higher than that. So I'd expect .pri to become a problem far sooner.
Besides, we could always split up .com between purveyors of "goods" and
"services", right? Isn't that distinction obvious in all cases? :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ke...@cfc.com | Kevin Darcy, Unix Systems Administrator
...heifetz!cfctech!kevin | Technical Services (CFC)
Voice: (313) 759-7140 | Chrysler Corporation
Fax: (313) 758-8173 | 25999 Lawrence Ave, Center Line, MI 48015
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willard Dawson
> But maybe it's time for all the uucp sites to set up their own
> second-level domain names just like everyone is always advising.
> Then we'd find out how well the system really works.
Will we? How? Pardon me for inserting myself back into the discussion...
Just how do we go about monitoring the overall status of mail? I'd say
that there is no way to measure the general health of the net in this
regard. For example, it might be useful to know the number of messages
bounced in the last day (say, because of "no such site" from DNS queries).
There will always be those who say "it's working just great" because they
have no indication that mail is actually failing, even though it may be
doing so in large amounts.
Obviously, one cannot reasonably test mail to a large percentage of sites
on a regular basis in any sort of exhaustive fashion (or can one?). Is
there anything in any flavor of SNMP that addresses email delivery stat-
istics? That is not likely, as the problem lies several layers above
that usually addressed in those net statistic measurement protocols.
>
> Les Mikesell
> l...@chinet.chi.il.us
--
daw...@willard.UUCP (Willard Dawson)
gatech!vdbsan!willard!dawson
emory!uumind!willard!dawson
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
Willard Dawson
> Hey, I never said you'd want to -- the question was, "can you do it?"
>
> If we assume that there are n (0<n<10) sites that are prepared to accept
> all mail from Internet to .UUCP which is not otherwise handled (a BIG
> assumption, I know) this could, technically, be done. Can we agree
> that it is theoretically possible to advertise inet->.uucp in the DNS?
I think so.
> I guess a technical reason why it would be a bad idea is that there are
> probably some Internet sites out there whose mailers are misconfigured
> enough to check MXes before handling local uucp traffic (not that they
> should be asking the DNS to resolve a *.UUCP name in the first place!).
There are indeed some Internet sites configured in just such a manner,
or, rather, there were just a few days ago. Perhaps they've all been
paying attention and have fixed their mis-configurations? One in
particular, at pa.dec.com. I've been corresponding with a DEC person,
who was supposedly pursuing the problem, but I've not been watching to
see whether they've made any recent changes, so I don't know how they
stand.
For what it's worth, I've come across the same problem, mailer software
querying DNS on host.UUCP, on several "Internet" hosts. If we accept
the statement (from more than one participant on these newsgroups) that
.UUCP is INVALID (typically shouted, as if that would make it somehow
more logical), the Internet hosts surely have no business in querying
DNS for that domain, yes?
We likely all agree on that one. But, how do we make that information
common knowledge?
>
> --
> David Keegel Home: <d...@boombox.apana.org.au> Tel: +61 3 593-1460
--
Robert Klotz
> jh...@smoke.marlboro.vt.us (Lord Yertle) writes:
> > la...@Circle.Raleigh.NC.US (Lance A. Brown) writes:
> >
> > >OK, now for the fun part. Finding a new MX site that is willing to
> > >forward your mail. I'd be worried about finding an Internet site nearby
> > >UUCP-wise that will MX for anybody.
> >
> > You have to do this before you send the (re)registration in. It's
> > kind of pointless otherwise, and I'm not sure they'd let you do it.
>
> There really is a "Catch 22". You need an operational MX in order to regis-
> ter, but until you've registered, you can't be absolutely sure that your site
> name doesn't conflict with someone else's. If you have a really good rela-
> tionship with your MX site, you can at least get them to do a "whois" for
> you, and this will identify a conflicting site name that has fully percolated
> into the system. But until you've actually registered, you can't be sure
> that someone won't beat you to the name.
>
ser...@nic.ddn.mil. a good place to start is by sending them a message
with "help"(without the quotes) as the subject of the message.
...robert
August Abolins
>
> _This_ is the specific reason for obtaining a FQDN in the Internet DNS and
> having an MX record. The MX record provides the routing information for
> any Internet host to send email to your host, even if it is really a
> uucp-only system...
I give up; what does MX stand for?
--- /|ugust /|bolins ---------------------[ abo...@visavis.cam.org ]---
Alan P Barrett
In article <e539VB...@willard.UUCP>,
daw...@willard.UUCP (Willard Dawson) writes:
> For what it's worth, I've come across the same problem, mailer software
> querying DNS on host.UUCP, on several "Internet" hosts. If we accept
> the statement (from more than one participant on these newsgroups) that
> .UUCP is INVALID (typically shouted, as if that would make it somehow
> more logical), the Internet hosts surely have no business in querying
> DNS for that domain, yes?
An Internet host cannot *know* that .UUCP in invalid unless it either
queries the DNS and gets back an error indication
or has special-case information somehow installed in its configuration.
A good argument can be made for avoiding special-case information, and
Internet hosts that believe such an argument have every right to query
the DNS for *everything*, including .UUCP sites. They will, of course,
get back an error indication, which will tell them that the domain is
invalid, and they will accordingly bounce the improperly addressed mail.
> We likely all agree on that one.
Apparently not.
--apb
Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa
RFC822: bar...@ee.und.ac.za Bang: m2xenix!undeed!barrett
Richard D. McCombs KB5SNF
But if his host isn't running software smart enough to do anything but
rmail user1
or
rmail neighbor1!thathost!anotherhost!someuser
meaning it doesn't know how to send mail to someone not directly
connected to it and it doesn't know about domains then you'll probably
want to use hishost!bighost for your smarthost. and if you have more
than one connection and they are in domains then you going to want them
your paths file even if they are all running smart software so that when
you send mail to us...@neighbor1.somewhere.org it won't have to go to
the smarthost first.
Melvin Klassen
> ... various stuff ...
Private E-mail to him produces the "bounce" message:
---
Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 255
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 13:44:49 -0500
From: MAILER...@mathcs.emory.edu (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
uux failed. code -1
554 <daw...@willard.waffle.atl.ga.us>... unknown mailer error 255
----- Unsent message follows -----
From: kla...@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen)
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
In article <e539VB...@willard.UUCP> you write:
>We likely all agree on that one. But, how do we make that information
>common knowledge?
Well, define UUCP as a valid-domain,
and put it into the top-level name-servers.
Then, every query will return an **authoritative** "not found" result.
A "smart" name-server will put the "not found" response into its cache,
and will never bother the root name-server for a long time!
Dale Weber
> The nearest MX'er would be a long distance connect for whoever
> provided the service.
This is what I had to do, exactly for the reasons you specified even
though there are at least two local Internet sites that are both
educational institutions.
--
Internet: da...@pdx.com (Waffle Beta Site) [16.8k HST] P r a i s e t h e
Home BBS: +1(503)335-9600 at 2400-9600 Bps [ v.32bis ] L o r d !
40 Mhz AMD 80386DX, 16 Meg RAM, 525 Meg total SCSI disk storage
Running in an OS/2 2.0 DOS session!
Tom Fitzgerald
> > second-level name under .pri, then you end up with a DNS zone containing
> > literally millions of RR's, which are all being queried constantly. Massive
> > capacity and adminstrative problems.
to...@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us (Tony DeBari) writes:
> I think you might be overestimating a bit here. Although there are
> millions of PC's out there, I suspect only a small fraction of them
> are, or would want to become, sites connected to "the net". Thousands
> maybe, but not millions.
It's dangerous to assume things like this when you design a new network.
The original Internet was designed to allow for 254 networks (more than
enough, right?), and was later hacked to allow for 16K medium-sized
networks, and now people who could be creating neat new services for us are
spending lots of time trying to figure out what to do when that 16K runs
out.
If we need something like a .pri domain (or better, a misc.us), we can
probably put something together that won't choke on its own success.
--
Tom Fitzgerald Wang Labs fi...@wang.com "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278 Lowell MA, USA It was closed...."
jim nutt
> to...@ssc60.sbwk.nj.us (Tony DeBari) writes:
>
> > I think you might be overestimating a bit here. Although there are
> > millions of PC's out there, I suspect only a small fraction of them
> > are, or would want to become, sites connected to "the net". Thousands
> > maybe, but not millions.
>
> It's dangerous to assume things like this when you design a new network.
> The original Internet was designed to allow for 254 networks (more than
> enough, right?), and was later hacked to allow for 16K medium-sized
another example is fidonet.. it doubles in size approximately
every two years (over 20,000 nodes right now...) and shows no
signs of slowing down. not to mention all the other bbs nets out
there..
----
jn...@hndymn.fidonet.org (jim nutt)
'the computer handyman' - 602/548-9706
Steven J. Sobol
: True. But, unlike the US (and, to a lesser extent, Canada) they don't
: appear to insist on a geographical hierarchy.
:
: THAT'S what people don't like about the .US domain. Or the .CA
: domain.
I haven't seen that many Canadian addresses that ARE geographical.
: : Andy Dunn <amd...@mongrel.UUCP> or <dunn...@mach1.WLU.CA> :
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is this geographical or
is it the address of some
organization???
--
Steve Sobol Head Cheerleader, APK Public Access *nix/Internet
(216) 481-9436 <2400 baud> (216) 481-9425 <v.32bis, TurboPEP>
Telnet: wariat.org To register: send e-mail to in...@wariat.org, or
log in to BBS and download file 'user.new' from file area 2.
Also President of The Tiny Software Co. E-Mail Address: sjs...@tiny.com
Dave McCrady
- Andrew M. Dunn (amd...@mongrel.UUCP) wrote:
-
- : True. But, unlike the US (and, to a lesser extent, Canada) they don't
- : appear to insist on a geographical hierarchy.
- :
- : THAT'S what people don't like about the .US domain. Or the .CA
- : domain.
-
- I haven't seen that many Canadian addresses that ARE geographical.
-
- : : Andy Dunn <amd...@mongrel.UUCP> or <dunn...@mach1.WLU.CA> :
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- is this geographical or
- is it the address of some
- organization???
-
- --
The address of my site shows one of the reasons why. The address gets
pretty long, especially for the dozen or so sites in my "park".
For example:
Users of this site are designated by their full names in the form
charles.mcgillicuddy
Stick a user@ in front of that and it gets to be a bit of a
mouthful:
charles.mc...@outlan.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
But you know where he is!
Dave McCrady da...@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Stu Labovitz
> s...@valinor.mythical.com (Stu Labovitz) writes:
> > _This_ is the specific reason for obtaining a FQDN in the Internet DNS and
> > having an MX record. The MX record provides the routing information for
> > any Internet host to send email to your host, even if it is really a
> > uucp-only system...
>
> I give up; what does MX stand for?
Sorry about spouting trade jargon. FQDN = Fully qualified domain name.
DNS = Domain Naming System. MX = Mail eXchanger (a type of DNS RR that
identifies an (IP-reachable) Internet host that is willing to receive your
email and which knows how to forward it onward to your site).
RR = Resource Record (a record in the DNS that contains information on a
domain or host). HINFO = Host INFOrmation RR (contains info on your H/W
and S/W configuration). For more information on any of these topics, you
can read one of the many books about the DNS now available on the market;
or send an email to ser...@nic.ddn.mil that contains the commands HELP
and INDEX (one command per line), get the appropriate Internet RFC
(Request for Comments (the Internet "Standards" documents)) and read!
Happy Holidays!
Stuart L Labovitz Internet: s...@valinor.mythical.com
(insert standard disclaimer here) UUCP: uunet!valinor!stu
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side,
and it holds the universe together. --- Carl Zwanzig
=============================================================================
David Keegel
I thought the main point of having a smarthost was to reduce or eliminate
the PATHS file. Personally, I don't want to update a file every time
my feed adds another site, I just want to send everything to my feed.
If they don't recognise it, they do the same (as long as there is a
"tree" structure, and each node knows all the sites "below" it).
Being a leaf node, I don't ever intend to have anything in my PATHS file.
--
<David....@apana.org.au> <werple!tuple!boombox!djk> Tel: +61 3 593-1460
aka: d...@boombox.apana.org.au, d...@cs.mu.oz.au. Formerly: d...@bby.com.au.
David Keegel
>l...@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>> If the mailer on hishost is smart enough to resolve what it can and
>> pass the rest on to bighost then you are better off using hishost as
>> your smarthost instead of hishost!bighost.
>But if his host isn't running software smart enough to do anything but
>rmail user1
> or
>rmail neighbor1!thathost!anotherhost!someuser
Then you tell your feed site that their software is broken (there is
another word that comes to mind starting with F, but let's keep this
polite in the first instance :-). I don't mind if a leaf site does
not have a smarthost or equivalent, but when a site is feeding others
it's a different ball game.
A site mynode which is prepared to take feeds should be able to resolve:
user (mynode!user, us...@mynode.dom.ain)
neighbor!user
neighbor!...!user
us...@neighbor.dom.ain
and should pass anything it can't handle to another site which can
either handle it or pass the buck again. If not their users and
sites who they feed should complain at them until it is fixed or
mynode realises it should not be a feed.
David Keegel
>Then, every query will return an **authoritative** "not found" result.
>A "smart" name-server will put the "not found" response into its cache,
>and will never bother the root name-server for a long time!
Last time I looked, BIND didn't support caching negative information.
If it does (or you have DNS server code which does!), do tell.
Stuart Lynne
>Andrew M. Dunn (amd...@mongrel.UUCP) wrote:
>
>: True. But, unlike the US (and, to a lesser extent, Canada) they don't
>: appear to insist on a geographical hierarchy.
>:
>: THAT'S what people don't like about the .US domain. Or the .CA
>: domain.
>
>I haven't seen that many Canadian addresses that ARE geographical.
>
>: : Andy Dunn <amd...@mongrel.UUCP> or <dunn...@mach1.WLU.CA> :
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> is this geographical or
> is it the address of some
> organization???
WLU.CA is the domain name for Wilfred Laurier University.
CA domain names are geographical based. But universities are assumed to be
under the top level. There is currently a discussion underway to change this so
that Universities would be under the second or province level. Since there is
no suggestion that any existing names be changed and there are few if any
universities that are not already registered its a moot point.
}CA Subdomain Application Instructions (Updated 1992 Aug 8)
}Subdomain:
}
} The name of the subdomain applied for. This will be of the form
} "yourorg.location.CA".
}
} "location" is a name pre-assigned to the smallest registered
} geographical region covering the branches or significant activity of
} your organization. In the case of organizations where the smallest
} geographical region is deemed to be Canada, the location subdomain will
} not exist. These provincial and territorial abbreviations (as
} recommended by the Department of the Secretary of State) are used at
} the second level: AB, BC, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, ON, PE, QC, SK, and YK.
} Locality subdomains are used at the third level and consist of
} unabbreviated names of localities (cities, towns, villages, etc.).
}
} An organization must typically have offices in more than one province
} or territory to qualify for a national subdomain. Organizations with
} offices in several localities in one province or territory should apply
} for a third-level subdomain name. Small organizations and
} organizations such as schools, libraries, and hospitals should apply
} for a fourth-level subdomain name. Universities are considered to be
} national organizations, and colleges are considered to be
} provincial/territorial organizations.
}
} "yourorg" is a string that encodes the proper name of your organization
} in a widely recognized fashion that will be unique to your parent
} domain. Use these guidelines to determine your candidate organization
} string:
}
} (1) Start with the full proper name by which your organization conducts
} its business.
} e.g.: "QL Systems", "University of Waterloo"
}
} (2) Remove all the blanks.
} e.g.: "QLSystems", "UniversityofWaterloo"
}
} (3) Remove truly extraneous components if there are any.
} e.g.: "QLSystems", "UniversityWaterloo"
}
} (4) If it is excessively long, abbreviate it by trimming on the parts
} whose removal will result in the least loss of recognizability
} outside the business-community sphere in which your organization is
} already well known.
} e.g.: "QLSystems", "UnivWaterloo"
}
} (5) If it still doesn't feel right, take out some more, using rule (4).
} e.g.: "QLSys", "UWaterloo"
}
} (6) (This is important!) Take the above iterations to someone in your
} organization whose organizational authority includes "the corporate
} image" of the organization, to see which (if any) of the above is
} the preferred "electronic corporate identity". (If none, then get
} that person to repeat the exercise themselves.)
}
} Legal characters are letters, digits, and the hyphen. You may mix
} upper and lower case, or use all upper or all lower case. Software
} will ignore case, and most users will probably type all lower or all
} upper case, depending on their terminals. You should capitalize your
} subdomain name as you wish it to appear in machine generated lists,
} such as the return address generated in your outgoing electronic mail.
} Hyphens may be used to separate words if necessary or consistent with
} normal references to the proper name of your organization.
}
} The parent authority (registrar) for your subdomain is the final
} authority on all matters relating to registration and subsequent use of
} your subdomain name. In particular, the CA domain registrar has
} authority for all second level names. Your subdomain name must be
} approved by the parent authority before it is used in network
} communications.
}
} For example:
}
} MegaCo.CA National company.
} WidgetCo.PE.CA Provincial Company.
} CityAutoLtd.Melville.SK.CA Small business.
} AlphaBetaU.CA University.
} SmytheColl.ON.CA College.
}
--
Stuart Lynne <s...@wimsey.com> ......................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/pub/wimseypd