Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!wivax!cadmus!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!root%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA From: root%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: What irks me about Unix mail Message-ID: <6553@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Sun, 9-Dec-84 09:53:39 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.6553 Posted: Sun Dec 9 09:53:39 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Dec-84 02:02:55 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 31 If you mean that VAX MAIL under VMS using DECNET is more reliable in its routing it is because it encompasses a trivial network, what do you have? 5 or 10 VMS/VAXes on a single simple spine or point-point? Anyone can solve networking as long as they limit the problem enough which is largely what decnet does. When you have hundreds, maybe thousands of nodes with no centralized administrative control (as you would need with decnet) the problem does indeed become a trade off of don't do it at all or do the best you can and get the bugs out over time. The extended UUCP link networks are indeed a major problem, address authentication is nearly impossible unless you had the entire network topology in your machine (a topology that seems to change every few minutes.) You are right, it should be fixed (that's easy to say.) However, if given the choice between no connectivity until it is perfect and most connectivity and some bugs I'll take the latter any day, even with some serious routing bugs. I think people that want wall-wall carpeted condos should stay away from the frontiers...it's not as safe out there. No one forces you do they? -Barry Shein, Boston University Gee, I hope this makes it but i DID save a copy via ~e