Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!killer!ssbn!carpet!bill
From: bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Routing mail through Digital's sites (was Re: Cut off AT&T?)
Message-ID: <122@carpet.WLK.COM>
Date: 16 Jul 88 06:40:33 GMT
References: <651@scovert.sco.COM> <30.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> <2761@ttrdc.UUCP> <271@mjbtn.UUCP> <84@holin.ATT.COM> <119@carpet.WLK.COM> <599@bacchus.DEC.COM> <121@carpet.WLK.COM> <606@bacchus.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy)
Followup-To: comp.mail.uucp
Distribution: na
Organization: W.L. Kennedy Jr. and Associates
Lines: 64

In article <606@bacchus.DEC.COM> reid@decwrl.UUCP (Brian Reid) writes:
>In article <121@carpet.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes:
>>  [ my stuff deleted ]

Before I get into following up what Brian says, I must report that I got
an email note from the Colorado Springs Digital office I was groaning
about.  The problem is *not* at decwrl, the problem is withing the way
that the network addressing works out (as Brian points out below).  I was
also told (and on a re-read of my posting, I agree) that I suggested that
decwrl doesn't do a thorough job of routing.

This needs emphasis, I did *NOT* mean to suggest or imply that.  Nor did I
mean to suggest or imply that Digital is not 100% behind usenet.  The fact
that the decwrl machine is a dedicated vax, no other duties other than mail
and news is certainly sufficient evidence of Digital's comittment to usenet
and I salute them for it.  When I used the term "humbly" it was exactly
what I meant, no sarcasm.  If anyone else got that notion, you wren't
reading what I wrote, I meant humbly, 'nuff said.

[ Brian points out that decwrl will field and forward not only uucp
  traffic, but also Internet traffic.  He's right, I've seen it, it's
  awesome. ]

>As a participant in Digital's own internal network, decwrl will relay mail
>addressed to a computer inside digital, e.g. tsc.dec.com.  If we receive a
>message addressed to decwrl!tsc.dec.com!pete, we will relay it to TSC::PETE,
>which is the internal address for that person on that machine.

This is where I tripped.  The combinations and permutations of addresses that
I had tried had all resolved to an internal address that was not acceptable
within Digital's network.  Further, the other two sites that tried the same
address tried the same combinations.  I ASSumed that since three sites all
tried the same technique that decwrl was broken, the technique was broken.
Had we used something acceptable to the Digital network it probably would
have gone through just fine (I'm going to try it :-)

[ explanation of "address it wrong" "I send it back" deleted ]

>and you cannot use the form "pete@tsc.dec.com". You must instead use the form
>"pete%tsc.enet@decwrl.dec.com". If your mailer is not an Internet mailer, but

This was spelled out for me, just this way, and I'll bet it will work.
Also, I didn't point out that the site that I was complaining about, a
non-Digital site that appeared in decwrl's map, no longer appears in their
map so I can't grouse about that bouncing either.

>resolved by pathalias in ways that we cannot control. I absolutely guarantee
>you that if you can cause your mailer to get a piece of mail shipped to
>decwrl, with an address of person@node.dec.com, person@node.dec, or
>person@node.enet, that we will relay it to that destination for you.

I believe it (but I'll have to stick my finger in the wound :-), I will try
it and I have as much confidence as Brian does that it will work.

>Since I know nothing about your mailer, I recommend that you use the
>maximally conservative address decwrl!tsc.dec.com!pete

Alas!  I can assure you that    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ will absolutely not
work, that's one of the ones I tried, as did others.  No matter, now that we
all know about "site.enet@decwrl.dec.com", it's a big win.  I hope that my
site and the other two weren't the only ones on usenet with the problem.  I
spent a lot of bandwidth if so.
-- 
Bill Kennedy  Internet:  bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
                Usenet:  { killer | att | rutgers | uunet!bigtex }!ssbn!bill