Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decuac.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!decuac!avolio
From: avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: The truth about .UUCP
Message-ID: <621@decuac.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Sep-85 07:17:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: decuac.621
Posted: Sun Sep 15 07:17:05 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 23:51:11 EDT
References: <552@down.FUN> <583@down.FUN>
Organization: ULTRIX Applications Center, MD
Lines: 37

In article <583@down.FUN>, honey@down.FUN (Peter Honeyman) writes:
> In [552@down], I compared the uucp and domain name spaces.  This note
> continues that (one-sided) debate.
> 
> .UUCP never was, ain't now, and never will be a domain.  But .UUCP is
> just the tip of the iceberg.  I am seeing strange and wonderful domain
> addresses proposed in net.mail and elsewhere, as well as in mail
> headers:
> 
> 	cbosgd.ATT.UUCP
> 	cbosgd.IL.USA.UUCP
> 	down.PRINCETON.EDU
> 	ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP
> 	utzoo.TORONTO.EDU
> 	utzoo.ON.CAN
> 	vortex.DEC
> 	vortex.UUCP

My dear fellow, you left out down.FUN!

This'll be short since it has all been said and for one reason or
another hasn't satisfied you.  Since you define "domain" in terms of
sri-nic ("A top-level domain is one that is recognized as such by
sri-nic.") replace domain with domain-style when/where you see it.

> I view this morass with utter bewilderment, bordering on contempt,
> since not one of the above is truly a domain (as defined in RFCs 819
> and 920).  I am in no better position to produce electronic routes for
> the above than for their domain-free equivalents.

To send to the above all you need do is know who the smart (so to
speak) machines are who "know about" those domains. (For example, send
vortex.DEC to us or to decwrl.) No bewilderment is intended.  In any
event, those "pseudo-domains" (okay?) are in place temporarily.

---
Fred @ DEC -- ULTRIX Applications Center