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 WeinsteinNewsgroups: 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--