Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!mit-eddie!gds From: gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: The TRUTH about .UUCP Message-ID: <5424@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 12:36:22 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.5424 Posted: Tue Oct 1 12:36:22 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Oct-85 06:18:05 EDT References: <593@down.FUN> <10476@ucbvax.ARPA> <12317@Glacier.ARPA> Distribution: net Organization: MIT Lusers and Hosers Inc., Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 17 I wish someone (you, Brian, or Peter) would explain exactly what the "point" is. The way I see it, domaining UUCP is becoming more of a political issue than a technical one. If in fact it is politics that is opposing the domaining of UUCP, then I can see Peter's points in that there is no real thrust towards the domaining of UUCP. (In other words, you won't get every sys admin on the net to conform.) On the other hand, if it's a technical consideration than I don't see what the problem is, because there are enough examples of domaining in the Internet that a suitable model for UUCP can be made where the transport agent (uucp) remains the same and domain addresses map to uucp routes, or uux calls, or what have you. -- It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under. Greg Skinner (gregbo) {decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu