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 plus5.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!plus5!hokey From: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: More thoughts on mail relays Message-ID: <912@plus5.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Nov-85 18:51:01 EST Article-I.D.: plus5.912 Posted: Sat Nov 2 18:51:01 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 09:18:13 EST References: <1813@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1746@peora.UUCP> <909@plus5.UUCP> <1761@peora.UUCP> Organization: Plus Five Computer Services, St. Louis, MO Lines: 90 JER, you are certainly correct that this issue has been "discussed" far too much. However, there are some points you (re)state to which I choose to examine. >I can certainly appreciate the arguments against using "@'s" in UUCP >routing strings. I strongly disagree with calling them "hybrid addresses," >however, because they are not addresses, they are routes, and they are >not hybrid, since "@" doesn't mean anything to any but a few modified Unix >sites. Are you saying that there are only a few sites running sendmail? Are you inviting them to identify themselves in order to substantiate their number? >> I say: >> Implementation #1: Permit hybrid routes, and make everybody parse them >> the same way. >> Problems: Doesn't work at gateways. > >It does, too. But we've been over this so many times, algorithms and all, >that I'm tired of reiterating it. Does not! So there. Here is a contrived example: wucs!kurt sends me mail via seismo. Seismo puts the thing into 822 format before sending it to me. I see wucs!kurt@seismo. I reply, and being a good bangist, send it to wucs, which then sends the mail to kurt@seismo. Wrong. I speak with both wucs and seismo. How do I choose? I don't recall *ever* seeing any real-world solution to this problem. This problem has been acknowledged for years (since before you or I got into this mess). One reason so few discuss it is because the Old Timers are even more burned out than we are. >... what's the difference between (assuming >a site that only has Unix mail and no router) writing > > petsd!vax135!ucbvax!sam@slowvax.ARPA >or > petsd!vax135!ucbvax!slowvax.ARPA!sam > >It just involves permuting the last two name tokens, and replacing the last >@ with a !. You are semantically disambiguating the beast. How do you know that ucbvax!sam didn't route the mail via slowvax.ARPA to vax135? The assumption you make says it all. What happens when/if you become a gateway which speaks to Arpa? At that time, you will suddenly be trying to send mail along the route slowvax.arpa->petsd->vax135->ucbvax->sam. >> Extra Protection: Keep the From: line in ! format in UUCP land. This way, >> sites which prepend their name will take b!a and produce c!b!a or b!a@c, >> either of which is "correct". > >I don't like this approach, and I wish we could discuss this, or some other >topic, instead of going over and over the @-precedence issue. Presently the >many strange ways sendmail sites macerate the routing stamps on the fronts >of the messages cause a lot of problems generating replies. If you are >going to argue in favor of RFC822 compliance (which I think you should), >then you shouldn't compromise on these issues. RFC822 compliance is swell if that is what you want. It doesn't really matter. Since RFC822 compliance can't be enforced on arbitrary UUCP sites, we have to have a way to transport mail between sites. The *only* thing I am advocating is the use of strict bang format when shuffling mail between UUCP sites. If you choose to take the mail and make it RFC822 compliant where you are, that's your business. Please make the mail look like ! mail when it leaves your scope of control when passing it to a UUCP neighbor. >> I have it on good authority that sendmail source can be put on any system >> licensed for SysV or 4.2 (or later) BSD. These sources seemed to think >> that there is a 99% chance that sites with 32V, V7, or SysIII licenses >> would also be able to have sendmail. 4.1BSD was not mentioned, but I doubt >> there would be a problem. > >I don't see the point to this. Why would other sites want to install >Sendmail? You raise a very good point. I thought about it, and came up with the following benefits of using sendmail: user aliases (not everybody can afford the 3-4 Mbytes occupied by all the MH software), mail to files, mail to pipes, decent forwarding capabilities, and local "services" (sending mail to the lineprinter, for example). Granted, much of this *could* be done by dedicated, smaller programs. I haven't seen them yet. I have heard rumors about them, but that's all. -- Hokey ..ihnp4!plus5!hokey 314-725-9492