Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!netinfo%ucbjade@ucb-vax.ARPA From: netinfo%ucbjade@ucb-vax.ARPA (Postmaster + BITINFO) Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Re: Mail Domain Names: Host table vs. Nameservers Message-ID: <2647@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 05:00:29 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2647 Posted: Thu Oct 31 05:00:29 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 08:02:16 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Lines: 33 In reply to: Date: Wed, 30 Oct 85 12:40 EST From: don.provan@a.cs.cmu.edu Message-Id: <30Oct85.124052.DP0N@A.CS.CMU.EDU> .... But to try to claim that mail sent out should be allowed to have illegal names because the sites are illegal shows some sort of brain damage. Where did you get the idea that I was saying that? The point that I was trying to make was that RFC 921 put use in the position of implimenting one set of addresses on one part of the internet mail system, and another set on the other part of the internet mail system, without separating the the mail system into two separate functioning parts. This has cause several problems. One solution I offered earlier was to logically separate the two system and have mail gateway(s) between the two which would put full domain addresses in messages going to the non-nameserver side into an form acceptable to the side of the mail system using host tables. One method to do this is to source route the addresses going to host table sites with the @domain-address of the mail gateway (which would be registered in host table). Does anyone have any comments on using this method to test out the nameservers on the research side of the house without interferring with the operational side of the house? Bill Wells postmaster%ucbjade@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU