I now know (I could have guessed :=) ) that the UK JANET network uses a reversed
domain address.
Thanks to all the kind souls that pointed this out to me
_ ______________________________________________________________________
| / o / / _ Wilko Bulte Domain: wi...@idca.tds.philips.nl
|/|/ / / /( (_) uucp : [mcsun,hp4nl]!philapd!wilko
* Philips Information Systems Nederland phone: 055-432372 fax: 055-432103
____________________________________________________________________________
Or maybe you could ask the 'postmaster' at nottingham, either for the
e-mail address, or to forward your message, then await the reply...
--
+--------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
Martyn Reason, RT7431 British Telecom Research Labs.
Tel: +44 473 646779 RT7431
e-mail: mjre...@planet.bt.co.uk Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, Suffolk, UK
What about: pc...@vax.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk
--
--- Wilko Melenhorst --- Internet me...@idca.tds.philips.nl ---
--- +31 55 432854 --- UUCP ..!{uunet,mcsun,hp4nl}!philapd!melen ---
Sorry to say it, but that's plain wrong. [Like driving on the right 8=]
Here's the complete NRS entry for it:
Abbreviated NRS name = UK.AC.NOTT.VAX, (UK.AC.NOTT.VAX)
Standard NRS name = UK.AC.NOTTINGHAM.CCC.VAX
Description = The VAX/VMS cluster in the Cripps Computing Centre
Dte = 000021001020
Try all 3 of the above, and if those don't work try sending via 3rd site:
pcxek%nott...@uk.ac.kcl.cc.ash
Do you have an 'intellegent mailer'? ie will it know where to send the mail
to get it onto a JANET site? If not find out the name of the gateway
and try:
pcxek%uk.ac.nott.vax@<GATE-WAY>
I would suspect the gateway name would be UKACRL.
-John Critchley
JANET: zda...@uk.ac.kcl.cc.ash
Internet: zdap050%ash.cc.k...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
EARN/BITNET: zdap050%ash.cc.kcl.ac.uk@UKACRL
UUCP: zdap050%ash.cc.k...@ukc.uucp
NB the little-endian adresses are for the yanks who don't know top from tail!
Why route explicitly via CUNY, if I may ask?
>EARN/BITNET: zdap050%ash.cc.kcl.ac.uk@UKACRL
The correct form is 'zda...@ash.cc.kcl.ac.uk'. Yes, I know, there are *some*
BITNET sites which can't handle domain-style addresses, but these can't handle
local parts longer than 8 bytes either.
>NB the little-endian adresses are for the yanks who don't know top from tail!
I'm not a 'yank', and I live in a world where addresses end in a country code.
Come to think about it, I think the only country which doesn't put the country
code at the end is the UK. I understand that citizens of Her Majesty the Queen
have little sympathy for those 'yanks' who tend to despise anything which is not
American, but calling anybody not sitting in the United Kingdom a 'yank' does
little to show the superiority of UK citizens in this respect. Finally, I would
like to point out that, strangely, the UK snail-mail system seems to use the
'yank' convention for internal UK delivery; is the CIA perchance responsible in
some way for this anomaly?
Eric
> Come to think about it, I think the only country which doesn't put the country
> code at the end is the UK.
[ aren't there some coloured book users in aus/nz who also do things the
wrong way round ? It's cos they're in "the colonies" I guess :-) ]
Eh ... PLEASE! Only *some* parochial <expletive deleted> netusers in
the UK have the addresses the wrong way round. And *all* UK netusers on
the netnews *have* to cope with addresses the right way round cos there
ain't no netnews gateway that reverses headers. Mailers yes, news
transports no.
Actually, I think kcl-cs!whoever_it_was_you_were_referring_to was simply
being provocative for the sake of it. If not, then just ignore him.
Eventually he'll go away :-)
ob. propaganda: when the vote comes, vote for eunet.misc!
--
ron...@robobar.co.uk | +44 81 991 1142 (O) | +44 71 229 7741 (H) | YELL!
"Nothing sucks like a VAX" -- confirmed after recent radiator burst!
Hit 'R' <RETURN> to continue .....
--
Andrew.M...@stl.stc.co.uk -- PSI%234237100122::Andrew.Macpherson
"There is nothing quite so worthwhile as simply messing about in boats"
Sorry to say it but the above is just extremely wrong. The NRS entry has
nothing to do with the correct e-mail address for sites which don't do
JANET grey book mail transport (i.e. the vast majority of connected
e-mail sites).
The original problem was caused because someone gave the *wrong* form of
e-mail address to a site outside of the UK.
The above article confuses the issue by quoting NRS data out of context
and re-stating the incorrect form of address as a rest-of-world e-mail
address.
The moral of this story is: Never quote 'backward' JANET addresses to sites
outside of the UK.
--
Rob Pickering, Postmaster, Inmos Limited.
(Any opinions quoted above to not neccesarily reflect the policies
of my employer etc)
I've just had this brilliant idea. While we're all petitioning the JNT
to install a tcp based service instead of X25, why don't we get them to
do things the right way round as well?
Half smiley.
Dylan.
--
Matthew J Farwell | Email: dy...@ibmpcug.co.uk
The IBM PC User Group, PO Box 360,| ...!uunet!ukc!ibmpcug!dylan
Harrow HA1 4LQ England | CONNECT - Usenet Access in the UK!!
Phone: +44 81-863-1191 | Sun? Don't they make coffee machines?
Can anybody explain to me why the whole confusion couldn't have been
resolved years ago simply by allowing the inclusion of the dot
separating the country domain from the root domain (in RFC822-speak),
as
.uk.ac.ed.lfcs or lfcs.ed.ac.uk.
?
I used to mail poor fools from JANET who insisted on posting news
articles with .sigs that give their address in AAT (Arse About Tit)
format, telling them that most mailers in the real world would probably
barf over their address. Trouble is there're so many of them I
couldn't be bothered any more.
Whilst perusing the NRS tables sent out by ukc I noticed the following
line that would no doubt cause some mailers to give up and go home in
disgust:
rlde *uk.ac.rutherford.dec-e uk.ac.rl.de
I'm not sure if there are others, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Cheers,
--
Bruce Munro. <br...@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!ukc!stc!bruce
STC Telecommunications, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB.
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
> I used to mail poor fools from JANET who insisted on posting news
> articles with .sigs that give their address in AAT (Arse About Tit)
> format, telling them that most mailers in the real world would probably
> barf over their address. Trouble is there're so many of them I
> couldn't be bothered any more.
Of course, if your name were Ed Vielmetti, you'd do that automagically :-)
Hmmm Now *that*'s an idea. Of course, if the net-at-large simply just
ignored them all, they might eventually all go away :-)
--
Quite correct.
>Quoting backwards addresses to users at many UK UUCP sites won't work either.
But then again - most Grey Book sites I know of can handle either
Grey Book or RFC822 ordering.
(so long as your mail isn't going to Czechoslovakia, Cuba, etc -
but that's another problem entirely, and restricted to Grey Book sites)
So really - (if possible) never use Grey Book domain ordering.
All this hassle will, of course, disappear when we're running X.400,
to be replaced with a new set of problems. :-(
Ciao,
--
\/ato. Ian Dickinson. GNU's not got BSE. Cut Cerebus some slack!
va...@cu.warwick.ac.uk Plinth.
va...@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk Sabeq.
gdd...@cck.cov.ac.uk "Nuke me tender, nuke me good!"
> All this hassle will, of course, disappear when we're running X.400,
> to be replaced with a new set of problems. :-(
E.g: HDB UUCP sites (i.e. most small commercial sites) won't be able
to send mail !! As John.P...@Specialix.Com has already pointed out
several times, HDB UUCP won't let you put "dangerous" characters
(like '/', for instance) into the rmail command line, so
rmail "/G=Ian/S=Dickinson/A=whatever/whatelse=whatnot/C=UK/"@relay.uk.net
just won't work. When X-400 addresses become more common, the only thing
we UUCP sites can do is to give up the rmail interface and run something
like B-SMTP instead. We *know* that full IP connectivity is not an option
for some of us, since dialup is much easier to hide costs with :-) so
UUCP itself is here to stay, but we do need to do something about rmail.
Smail 3.1 does have some support for B-SMTP (though I haven't looked at it
yet) but we will need major relay sites (like ukc for instance) to support
it too. Or whatever alternative we choose -- is there one ?
Knowing how long it takes to get software written and accepted by the
community at large, it's probably time to get moving *now*. So, here's
a CFD -- what do EuNet UUCP folk want to replace rmail with, how, and
what do the backbones and other major sites think ?
Followup to news please, this needs open discussion...