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