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