From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!hpda!ld Newsgroups: net.news Title: Re: Choose better site names, guys Article-I.D.: hpda.367 Posted: Thu Feb 17 12:18:28 1983 Received: Sat Feb 19 13:15:29 1983 Since Mark Horton choose to publically reproach my statement regarding site names...I choose to publically defend it. I promise that I will not continue this discussion on the net (hint, hint, Mark? Mail to me. I will publish a retraction if it is warranted). I would have just mailed to Mark myself, but I felt that this argument would be of some value to uucp/news administrators. To recap (because of the strange ordering netnews uses when handing postings to the reader) the original posting and Marks reply , I stated: When administering...uucp...three rules...in naming said site. 1) Site names must be unique. 2) Site names must be the same length. 3) Site names must be no more than 7 characters. Mark Horton replied: Close but no cigar. The real rules are 1) Site names must be unique. 2) Site names must be unique in their 7 characters. There is a bug in many UUCP's... As long as the bug exists in "many" (most?) uucp's, then the 3 rules I stated are correct. As long as there are sites that only have binary licenses (legally), then they should be made aware of this bug. That was the intent of my original posting. Once they are made aware of the bug, then it is a feature (and I get a cigar from those binary sites I inform). Posting the fix does no good to non-source sites. Remember, we do not all work in that great phone booth in the sky. Since I began my original posting with "When administering a MULTI-NODE-STAR installation, ..." and "... do not NECESSARILY mix ..." (emphasis added), I was addressing the article to a certain type of site/administrator and I was indicating that it would probably work anyway. The entire article was prompted by my having to search for the prefix routine (yes, I have a source license) and verifying what I suspected when mail was being misdirected. Without the source, I would have been at a loss to interpret the uucp LOGFILE. Hence, I can save some other uucp slave (there are no uucp masters) from the same fate. Until the definitive uucp source that hasbugs (ha!) is collected and distributed to all sites...!? The question is, will Bell or Berkeley distribute the best version of uucp first? While it is true that site names can be longer than 7 characters, it is not good practice to violate this rule (just as it is not good practice to violate the rule in C). Since I do not want to be known for suggesting a violation of rules (I am known for a lot worse things), I deliberately posted rule 3. Understand that, while I am not the most experienced uucp hacker, I am not in inexperienced twit either. My error in posting the original statement was one of omission. I did not tell anyone why I felt the three rules existed (the bug). If I had, then Mark probably would not have replied. Finally (pant pant), I look forward to the Internet domain naming scheme, but Internet may still use uucp, and the problem will not go away. Thus, the mail software may still expand d.osg.cb.btl.uucp into ..!cbosgd!.. QED Note to Mark: Much has been posted about emotions coming across the net incorrectly. I just want you to know that this is a non-belligerent reply. Uucp hackers need all the friends they can get (we lose a lot of friends explaining why their mail was dropped on the floor). Larry Dwyer ucbvax!hpda!ld