Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site im4u.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!im4u!jsq
From: jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Mail addressing and routing
Message-ID: <526@im4u.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 20:54:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: im4u.526
Posted: Tue Sep 17 20:54:38 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 05:25:13 EDT
References: <644@adobe.UUCP> <169@graffiti.UUCP> <1617@peora.UUCP>
Reply-To: jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman)
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 26

In article <1617@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:
(>> is quotes from Peter da Silva)
>> If too much stuff is going through ut-sally, I get a nasty letter back &
>> start sending stuff through ihnp4.  Or through someone else.  This way no-
>> one NEEDS to take on an excess load.
>
>> I don't expect anyone to pay any attention to me, since I'm just a
>> lowly peon who can't afford a machine big enough to compile pathalias
>> on... but in case anyone has got this far, consider it...
>
>The scheme you have described is what I have been calling the "distributed
>nameserver" scheme, which in MY "lowly peon" opinion, is the way to do it.
>I disagree with the geographic sudomain scheme for cost reasons, but aside
>from that, you have just described the routing string generated by a
>nameserver when it routes a message to the next nameserver down the line.

The incident he referred to did not involve a nameserver:  it involved
me trying to keep my system from being swamped.  In other words, he's
proposing manual routing by somebody other than the sender.  Thank
you very much, but I decline the privilege of being the manual nameserver
for central Texas.

Your scheme, on the other hand, is reasonable.
-- 
John Quarterman,   UUCP:  {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!jsq
ARPA Internet and CSNET:  jsq@sally.UTEXAS.EDU, formerly jsq@ut-sally.ARPA