Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version Vortex 1.0 6/6/83; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: Lauren Weinstein 
Newsgroups: net.news,net.bugs.uucp
Subject: UUCP filenames
Message-ID: <89@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Aug-83 04:18:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.89
Posted: Thu Aug  4 04:18:42 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Aug-83 16:39:49 EDT
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 32

The use of "sender" sitenames in uucp filenames definitely should
reduce the chances of filename collision.  It should be noted, however,
that on the sender systems uucp's are free to use whatever filename
formats they desire, since it's only the filename appearance on the *remote*
system that really needs to be standardized.

For systems that run with separate subdirectories for each site, using
the sender's name for all filenames on the sender system is probably OK,
since the subdirectory itself uniquely specifies the destination for the
files.  On systems that run only one /usr/spool/uucp directory, or single
C., D., X. subdirectories, it might make more sense to store the files
locally in "remote name" form but send them to "sender name" files on the 
remote side.  The whole point here is to make it easier for a system person
on the sender system to easily tell which files are destined for
which sites when manually inspecting the queues.  I suspect that this 
wouldn't be such a bad idea for sites running with separate site
subdirectories as well.

The vortex UUCP, for example, runs with separate C., D., X. directories.
At the next compile, all vortex C. files will be of the following form:

(only some fields are shown -- sample is for mail to "floyd")

S D.floydAQRST D.vortexAQRST
S D.floydXQRSR X.vortexXQRSR

As you can see, this arrangement leaves the files sitting locally
with the remote system's name, but delivers them with the 
local (sender) system's name to avoid filename collisions and allow proper
X. file sorting.  

--Lauren--