Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!hal!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: this might be getting out of hand... Message-ID: <12239@ncoast.UUCP> Date: 15 Aug 88 23:48:26 GMT References: <676@bacchus.DEC.COM> <881@vsi1.UUCP> <340@ateng.UUCP> <1966@stpstn.UUCP> <3746@palo-alto.DEC.COM> <211@mango.athertn.Atherton.COM> <12212@ncoast.UUCP> <41@volition.dec.com> Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) Followup-To: comp.mail.uucp Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh Lines: 21 As quoted from <41@volition.dec.com> by vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie): +--------------- | In article <12212@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: | # We should require sites using the Internet for mail routing to become | # registered in at least the UUCP maps, so that *some* sites can find them. | | Well, you'd also have to require all uucp/internet gateways to run passive | rerouters. After all, "vixie" is listed in the maps, but "vixie!paul@Sun.COM" | is still bogus if Sun.COM cannot reach "vixie!". +--------------- I'd require *everyone* on the Internet to use passive routing. After all, the Internet was intended for this, and *not* for explicit routing. And the original network (former Arpanet) was using it long before we UUCP types got into it; we should conform to existing standards, no? If we want to use their network, we should play by their rules. ++Brandon (and YES, I'm working on getting ncoast registered!) -- Brandon S. Allbery, uunet!marque!ncoast!allbery DELPHI: ALLBERY For comp.sources.misc send mail to ncoast!sources-misc