Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mecc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!dicomed!mecc!sewilco
From: sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Mail routing -- problems showing up
Message-ID: <361@mecc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Sep-85 15:01:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: mecc.361
Posted: Mon Sep 23 15:01:05 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 01:09:57 EDT
References: <3018@nsc.UUCP> <2875@topaz.ARPA> <536@down.FUN> <686@umd5.UUCP> <360@im4u.UUCP> <165@graffiti.UUCP> <508@im4u.UUCP> <582@down.F23 Sep 85 19:01:05 GMT
Reply-To: sewilco@.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
Organization: MN Ed Comp Corp, St. Paul, MN
Lines: 46
Keywords: UUCP UUMAIL domain RFC822 map central
Summary: You not get all your mail if UUMAIL domain name is duplicate.

In article <582@down.FUN> honey@down.FUN (Peter Honeyman) writes:
>john wonders
>	... how it is that the huge UUCP map that current UUCP source
>	routing requires is not centralized but domains would have to
>	be centralized....
>it's simple.  domains impose an authority structure on a network of
>computers, while uucp routers make no such requirement.

As with everything on UUCP, RFC822 UUCP centralization is only by
influential sites agreeing on standards.  The great advantages of
RFC822 are globality of addresses and that only the sites sharing
the same level of domain/subdomain routing need to agree on standard
names.

Even without a name registry, merely limiting the definition from
the present global names will greatly reduce chance of name conflicts.

The sites which pass messages between domains will have to agree on
domain names.  Penalty for not doing so is loss of mail.

The sites which pass messages between subdomains will have to agree
on subdomains.  Penalty for not doing so is loss of mail.

The sites which pass messages between sites will have to agree on
names of those sites.  Penalty for not doing so is loss of mail.

RFC822 duplicate site names are impossible on ARPAnet due to the central
registry.  On UUCP (the .UUMAIL domain?) duplicate names are possible, but
need site and subdomain addresses to match in order to be duplicates.
UUCP domain-oriented mailers should obey the domain and subdomain
information first when passing mail in the direction of a site without
a direct link.

With the current UUCP routing, a duplicate site name
	ON THE MAP: Pathalias might be confused and pick route to wrong one.
	IN THE NET: A site which rewrites paths may pick route to wrong one.
While with RFC822 addresses, a duplicate site or domain name
	ON THE MAP: Less likely due to reduced conflicts in subdomains, but
		still possible.  Same problems as current Pathalias, though
		new route-finding program should only find paths to subdomains.
	IN THE NET: The wrong site could only be chosen if the duplicate
		sites are within the same subdomain.
-- 

Scot E. Wilcoxon	Minn. Ed. Comp. Corp.      circadia!mecc!sewilco
45 03 N / 93 15 W	(612)481-3507 {ihnp4,uwvax}!dicomed!mecc!sewilco