Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!peora!jer From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Mail routing -- problems showing up Message-ID: <1450@peora.UUCP> Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 00:42:33 EDT Article-I.D.: peora.1450 Posted: Thu Aug 15 00:42:33 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 21:17:16 EDT References: <1383@peora.UUCP> <9546@ucbvax.ARPA> <1422@peora.UUCP> <2027@ukma.UUCP> Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl. Lines: 66 > The current implementation of domains (UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU) has them > completely seperate from the underlying networks. The host tables > have entries explaining which network to use to get to site X. No, really that wasn't exactly what I meant. I understand the benefits of having a single name for a single machine (or, more accurately, a single set of mailboxes), and also recognize that addresses that imply different networks do not represent this best-of-all-possible-worlds approach. Actually what motivates me to suggest the merits of networks implicit in addresses (and that is not even a point I STRONGLY advocate) is the economic and political considerations: for example, officially I should not send to my colleagues on UCIVAX via the ARPAnet, since they are both on ARPA and UUCP, since my communications have nothing to do with ARPA-sponsored research; yet someone else might well want to use the ARPAnet instead. What's really needed, from the USER standpoint, might be a network-specifier; but that's not currently in the addressing scheme, I don't think (though I remember someone from Europe recently suggested that in here; seemed like a good idea to me). My actual point was that I think the ROUTING strings should not be constrained by network-independent address formats; but that at present, the services provided by the user interfaces tend to tie closely together with the services provided by the transport mechanisms (apparently because both go through sendmail, or use the same set of sendmail configuration specifications, or something along those lines), so that a lot of confusion occurs over the semantics of the address and routing strings. I at present still contend that the UUCP transport mechanism's mail handling can and probably should be done by a relatively small rmail program, independent of sendmail, and that mail should be passed off to sendmail only when, for one reason or another, the UUCP routing information for a particular message has been exhausted (and then only if a real need exists). Only a few lines of code (maybe 75 or so) are actually required to implement domaining, based on my experiments, with direct passing of in-transit UUCP messages to uux. This assumes you follow the rules I explained earlier, though. > (You *were* implying that AT&T might want to grab the net weren't you? > Don't they have it already?) No. Actually my personal OPINION is that AT&T's present direction is to (a) implement domaining within the company (something I think they have already gotten most of the way to implementing already), and (b) discontinue serving as a free mail-forwarder for people outside, via the domaining approach. And I have no criticism of that at all; they are certainly entitled to do that. Actually, I was thinking of a rather unpleasant argument that occurred in here awhile back regarding another form of the UUCP network, though that only made me aware of the possibility -- i.e., I don't mean to imply that that incident actually was an attempt of that sort. If you think about it, AT&T already earns a very good income from UUCP, due to all the phone charges; the best they could do is probably to reduce their costs in various ways. Note that all the comments I have made on AT&T are mere speculation on my part, from looking at the maps that come out each month; I don't know anything about them, really, and have no opinion about their business matters. I'm sorry if my comment was misinterpreted that way; I was thinking more of something like a start-up company. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642