HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:37:34 GMT

In article <1ilqa3INNhfh@wintermute.phys.psu.edu> kenh@leps5.phys.psu.edu (Ken Hornstein) writes:
>In article <5w43wB5w165w@willard.atl.ga.us> dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson) writes:
>I hate to be rude, but I feel that the question we should be asking here
>is not "How can we do this?", but rather "Why should we bother?".  Sure,
>there's lots of entries in the UUCP maps, but it's pretty obvious that the
>current trend is to get registered in a domain.  How many entries in the maps
>are even correct anymore?  UUCP is fine as a transport mechanism, but as a
>network I don't think it can cut it anymore.
>
>I don't think he was saying that you shouldn't be able to find out the
>transport method, just that you should be able to use the same addressing
>scheme no matter if you're using UUCP, SMTP, or carrier pigeon.

I have to agree with this post. One addressing scheme. Get those uucp
hosts FQDN's. This can easily be handled by the site that connects them
to the internet.

The UUCP maps date back to the days when System V, Xenix et al where shipped
with mail software that did not understand anything other than uucp 
addressing and uucp as the only transport. 

All of the currently shipping UNIX systems should have modern mail systems
that can be configured to understand FQDN's and use either SMTP or UUCP.
And PD software (smail 3 or smail 2.5) can be used to retrofit older systems.

There is little excuse to continue propagating bang paths or mixed formats.

One place to start might be to add a comment to Emily Postnews or one of
the other FAQ's that suggests that it is not a good idea to propagate 
bang path addresses. I.e. don't put one into your .signature. Use only
your FQDN for email.

-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.com> ......................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/pub/wimseypd
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr)
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Organization: Penn State Population Research Institute
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 01:35:44 GMT

In article <C0pG4u.1Lx@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil> rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson) writes:
>>[get FQDN]
>That is not as easy as it sounds.  There are thousands of UUCP sites who
>are multiple hops from the Internet via multiple paths.  The host that
>eventually drops their mail into the Internet may be different for each
>message.

Perhaps, but this fact is irrelevant.  The problem lies in routing
and addressing for Internet->UUCP, not UUCP->Internet.

>That host may be totally unaware that they are the connection.
>In this case, what site acts as the MX?

The closest agreeable site on the Internet.

>The originating site only has an
>agreement to exchange mail with it's neighbors.  Now what?

	Huh?  If the site has an agreement to exchange mail with its
neighbors, then why is it allowing mail to go through its site to
downstream hosts of its neighbors?  If a site is this well connected,
then I can't imagine them not agreeing to agree to one simple MX, and
an entry in their mailer to say "mail to foo.bar.org goes to
!neighbor!hop1!hop2!foo!%s".  This is not rocket science, nor is it
hard to maintain, unless you get into the hundreds of MX's.  The
beauty of this is that all this techical stuff is kept local to the
sites involved with actually delivering the mail.  If suddenly "hop2"
becomes a neighbor, then the MX site can immediately change his
mailer to say: "mail to foo.bar.org goes to !hop2!foo!%s" and all
his mail will now take the new path.  No more waiting weeks or months
for everyone to update their pathalias databases.

--Dave
-- 
System Administrator, Population Research Institute    barr@pop.psu.edu
	What if there was no such thing as a hypothetical question?
From: black@ll.mit.edu (Jerry Glomph Black)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: UUCP Forwarding (easy question)
Date: 13 Jan 93 01:33:56 GMT
Organization: Not a whole hell of a lot
Originator: black@ll.mit.edu (Jerry Glomph Black)

Simple question.  I have a Sun (mysun)embedded in a monster TCP/IP network, and
have installed a direct serial uucp link to another Sun (otherguy).
I can mail to the remote, no problem, from my Sun :  eg:  mail otherguy\!black
works fine, as does mail black@otherguy.uucp.

What DOESN'T work is, from a third machine (outside, TCP-connected) on my net:

mail black%otherguy.uucp@mysun    or   black\!otherguy@mysun.

I've hacked at sendmail.cf, can't see how I can get mysun to forward mail
from outside to otherguy.    Thanks!
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:18:08 GMT

In article <C0pG4u.1Lx@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil> rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson) writes:
>>I have to agree with this post. One addressing scheme. Get those uucp
>>hosts FQDN's. This can easily be handled by the site that connects them
>>to the internet.
>>
>That is not as easy as it sounds.  There are thousands of UUCP sites who
>are multiple hops from the Internet via multiple paths.  The host that
>eventually drops their mail into the Internet may be different for each
>message.  That host may be totally unaware that they are the connection.
>In this case, what site acts as the MX?  The originating site only has an
>agreement to exchange mail with it's neighbors.  Now what?

Probably a bad idea to set things up like that in the first place. If you
expect to receive mail via an Internet host some arrangements have to be
made to let it know how to do it. Trying to pass this information along
with the message as part of the address just does not have a high success
rate. It does work in some cases, and if you want to receive your mail 
that way then keep doing it. 

But if you want trouble free mail, make the arrangements, pay the bills
and if necessary upgrade your mail software. Your correspondants will
thank you.

-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.com> ......................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/pub/wimseypd
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: mea@polaris.utu.fi (Matti Aarnio)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of RFC-822
Keywords: whitespace, structured headers, destination
Organization: University of Turku, Computing Centre
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 07:11:32 GMT

stu@valinor.mythical.com (Stu Labovitz) writes:
>(As a preface to the following questions, I would like to make it clear
>that I am _NOT_ trying to start an interpretation-war over RFC #822
>(Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages)!)
>  I am having some problems interfacing the mail software at my site
>with that of one of my neighbor sites.  The problem evidences itself
>in a difference of interpretation of how certain headers in a mail
>message may be formatted.
...

  There is NOTHING to prevent reformatting of headers in any way an
intermediant system may want to do it.  Even the order of headers isn't
guaranteed to stay the same -- well, except the "Received:" -lines.

>RFC #822 goes on to say (in Section 3.4.2, entitled "White Space") that
>"in structured field bodies, multiple linear space ASCII characters
>(namely HTABs and SPACEs) are treated as single spaces and may freely
>surround any symbol.  In all header fields, the only place in which at
>least one LWSP-char is REQUIRED is at the beginning of continuation lines
>in a folded field."

  Yes, as normal header starts at column 1, continuation must start later.
However a completely empty line (syntax allows "CRLF space space CRLF space"
within a header -- see 'linear-white-space') 

>In particular, I am having problems with the To: line of the header.
...
>linear-white-space =   1*([CRLF] LWSP-char)
>LWSP-char      =       SPACE / HTAB

>Now that we've covered what I believe are the relevant sections of the
>RFC, here's the question:  Does RFC #822 provide limits (either minimum or
>maximum) upon the number of SPACE characters that separate the "To:" from
>the mailbox on the destination line?  Must there be at least one SPACE,
>and is there any reasonable interpretation to prevent the existance of
>more than one SPACE?

  No, there is no preventation from more than one space character.
For example following ones are completely valid To: -lines (Note: '_'
presents here SPACE, while normal white-space means HTAB has been used)
	To:	(Commentary_text
		_folded_over)__<address@destination>
	To:__address@destination
	Comment:_Test comment...
		__
		A_bit_long_test_comment_at_that..

(However, folding the "To:" -line in similar fashion to "Comment:" -line is
 not very advisable..)

>Many, many thanks in advance for all of your help on this issue!

>   Stuart L Labovitz                    Internet:  stu@valinor.mythical.com
>    (insert standard disclaimer here)       UUCP:   uunet!valinor!stu
>       Duct tape is like the force.  It has a light side, a dark side,
>         and it holds the universe together.      --- Carl Zwanzig

	/Matti Aarnio <mea@utu.fi>
		University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: jcwasik@srv.PacBell.COM (Joe Wasik)
Subject: Mail "Lost in Space"
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:13:51 GMT

Hopefully some kind soul can direct me to where I can register the name
of my email site.  It seems someone has started using the same machine
name as mine -- and my email apparently is bouncing.  

Thank you.


-- 
Joe Wasik, Pacific Bell, San Ramon, CA (510)823-2422, jcwasik@pacbell.com
From: dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses 
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 01:39:31 EST
Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814

nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:

> In article <H9TkwB1w165w@willard.UUCP> dawson@willard.UUCP writes:
> 
>    How will that help?  You'll still NOT deliver mail to valid sites.  If
>    you're going to suggest that .UUCP be made a valid Internet domain, then
>    there should be some mechanism worked out to allow DNS to route mail to
>    a site in the .UUCP domain.  No, DNS doesn't do that now.
> 
> There is no such thing as a site in the .UUCP domain, and such sites
> are not valid sites.  willard.UUCP only tells me that someone,
> somewhere, transports mail to a UUCP host called willard.  I don't
> CARE how you get your email.  You could get it via carrier pigeon
> for all I care.  Would you advocate registering the .PIGEON domain if
> you did?  Why not register a .SLIP domain or a .PPP domain?

The voice of the Internet Gestapo.  Thanks, I'm really glad to hear that
I don't exist, that I'm a non-site.

> There is no point in trying to convince you that you're wrong; the
> fact that people can't send you mail should convince you.  I see that
> you're getting a FQDN, so why do you continue to argue for .UUCP??

Did I argue for .UUCP?  Or, have you totally missed the larger context
I've been striving for?

>    The Internet has, in the past, taken the easy way out on this one, only
>    attempting to define mail delivery to sites that are provably on the
>    Internet.  That, IMO, is rather short-sighted.  "Good enough," perhaps.
>    Not, I say.
> 
> I suppose that, before the advent of MX records and MX-smart mailers,
> your statement would have been correct.  It is now losing wrong.  Is
> crynwr.com "provably on the Internet"?  No, I have no IP access at all.
> 
> Now, you're probably going to reply that even though I'm not on the
> Internet, my MX and SOA records are.

Exactly.

> So what??  I pay PSI $25/month
> to maintain those records.  If they piss me off, I go to someone else.
> I don't care that I can't ``vi named.crynwr''; they don't need to
> be changed because they work.

Good for you.

> They have a wildcard MX record for
> crynwr.com, so news.crynwr.com and fax.crynwr.com both work just fine.
> 
> -russ <nelson@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
> Crynwr Software           Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
> 11 Grant St.              315-268-1925 Voice  |  LPF member - ask me about
> Potsdam, NY 13676         315-268-9201 FAX    |  the harm software patents do


-- 
dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson)
gatech!vdbsan!willard!dawson
emory!uumind!willard!dawson
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
From: dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses 
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 01:35:35 EST
Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814

nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:

> In article <BzzGKp.4L5@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us writes:
> 
>    In article <BzxvDC.CoK.2@cs.cmu.edu> Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu writes:
>    
>    >There is far too much ad hoc support for .uucp out there, with
>    >the result that there has been no real incentive offered. 
> 
>    Perhaps not everyone shares the opinion that there is only one email syste
>    and that users within it have no reason to want to connect to anyone
>    outside of it.
> 
> There *is* only one email system.  Check out advertisements in
> computer journals.  IF they list an email address, it is their FQDN.

Just as a wee little counterpoint, many also use x.400 addressing.
(or are you only reading journals from the US?)

> .UUCP sucks because implies that a particular transport is being
> used.  Names, addresses, routes, and transports are all distinct
> characteristics.

... unique to each different networking system in use.  *Not* every
networking system in the Universe uses the FQDN business.  This is
Karl_Kleinpaste's point?

> 
> -russ <nelson@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
> Crynwr Software           Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
> 11 Grant St.              315-268-1925 Voice  |  LPF member - ask me about
> Potsdam, NY 13676         315-268-9201 FAX    |  the harm software patents do


-- 
dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson)
gatech!vdbsan!willard!dawson
emory!uumind!willard!dawson
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: tucker@bedford.progress.COM (Kyle Tucker)
Subject: UUPC-No userid in From or Return-Path fields
Reply-To: tucker@bedford.progress.COM
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:07:29 GMT

I am using UUPC with PCELM as the UA. I do not get any userid in
either of these fields when received on my Sparc. I have
tried a zillion(???) combos in the .rc fields to no avail. I do not get
the userid in the headers when I use MAIL.EXE either!
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kyle Tucker - Email Administrator  | 		Progress Software Corporation
tucker@bedford.progress.com 	   |		14 Oak Park
(617)280-4565			   |		Bedford, Mass. 01730
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.sendmail,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.questions
From: larry@news.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: DNS name servers
Organization: Gator Communications - Feeds-R-Us 219-289-3745 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:55:01 GMT

jgreco@solaria.mil.wi.us (Joe Greco) writes:

>So I am confused as to what you are asking.  Clarify?

Since I am running a cached namesever, this data is lost when the
machine is booted.  I guess I am asking is there anyway to keep a
file on disk which is the result of continuous operation of uptime
thus not requiring "so many lookups from other servers" after the
machine has been rebooted.

For example, here is my named.boot file


; #ident	"@(#)cmd-inet:etc/named.boot	1.2"
;
;	boot file for name server
;
directory	/etc/inet
cache		.               	root.cache
primary		rn.com			rn.zone
primary		miles.com		miles.zone

and root.cache contains:

; <<>> DiG 2.0 <<>> . ns +aa @ns.nic.ddn.mil 
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY , status: NOERROR, id: 10
;; flags: qr aa ; Ques: 1, Ans: 7, Auth: 0, Addit: 10
;; QUESTIONS: 
;;	., type = NS, class = IN
;; ANSWERS:
.	518400	NS	NS.NIC.DDN.MIL.
.	518400	NS	AOS.BRL.MIL.
.	518400	NS	KAVA.NISC.SRI.COM.
.	518400	NS	C.NYSER.NET.
.	518400	NS	TERP.UMD.EDU.
.	518400	NS	NS.NASA.GOV.
.	518400	NS	NIC.NORDU.NET.
;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS:
NS.NIC.DDN.MIL.	518400	A	192.112.36.4
AOS.BRL.MIL.	518400	A	128.63.4.82
AOS.BRL.MIL.	518400	A	26.3.0.29
AOS.BRL.MIL.	518400	A	192.5.25.82
KAVA.NISC.SRI.COM.	518400	A	192.33.33.24
C.NYSER.NET.	518400	A	192.33.4.12
TERP.UMD.EDU.	518400	A	128.8.10.90
NS.NASA.GOV.	518400	A	128.102.16.10
NS.NASA.GOV.	518400	A	192.52.195.10
NIC.NORDU.NET.	518400	A	192.36.148.17
-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: mikec@vivanet.com (Mike Chase)
Subject: UUCP EXIT CODE HELP
Organization: VIVATRON Corporation 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:50:43 GMT


Hode Net,
 Could some kind sould please fill me in on what the exit codes to uucico/uucp
are, not just the codes in the .Status file of uucp, but the actual unix exit
codes and what they mean.
 Thanks in Advance......

mikec@vivanet.com


Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: anton@analsyn.gts.org (Anton J Aylward)
Subject: CC:Mail to UUCP ?
Summary: is there a C:Mail to UUCP gateway ?
Keywords: UUCP CC:Mail
Reply-To: anton@lethe.gts.org
Organization: ASCI: UNIX Database and Communications
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:07:16 GMT

I know tehr is a product which gateways CC:MAil to SMTP, and I
understand it is rather expensive.

Is there anything which will gateway CC:Mail to a UUCP transfer
instead?  Commercial products aer OK answers to this question.

--
Anton J Aylward
	"The body politic is swerving from left to right and right to
	 left looking for quick fixes for systemic problems."
	   - Paul Palango, Journalist, ex The Globe and Mail
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
From: barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr)
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Followup-To: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Organization: Penn State Population Research Institute
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 14:43:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.022756.25843@ssigv.UUCP> gdonl@sunrise.ssi1.com (Don Lewis) writes:
>In article <BjQPrA-FBh107h@boombox.apana.org.au> David.Keegel@apana.org.au writes:
>>it be nice if BIND cached negative information like "UUCP. -- unknown
>>domain".)
>
>Even if BIND had negative caching, it wouldn't help much in this case.
>The problem is that there wouldn't be any queries for just "UUCP".  Your
>local name server would forward queries for foo.UUCP and bar.UUCP to
>the root servers, which would return a no such domain response.  Your
>local server would cache this information for foo.UUCP and bar.UUCP,
>but when it received a query for baz.UUCP, it would still forward it
>to the root servers.

Not so.  Assume BIND does negative caching.

1. resolver gets query for "foo.UUCP".
2. Since it does not know this data, it first must find it out from
   the root nameservers since this is not in same top-level domain.
3. The nameserver contacts a root nameserver to find out who "foo.UUCP"
   is.  In the NXDOMAIN response is "how far" the root nameserver got
   down the tree before it hit the invalid domain.  (For example if you
   query "foo.UUCP" you get ".".  If you query "bogus.us" you get
   ".US".  For "bogus.pa.us" you get "pa.us") Thus the local nameserver
   knows that there is not a ".UUCP" domain, and can therefore cache that
   information.

In the answer is also the TTL value.  It would be safe for the local
nameserver to use this TTL value for the negative cache entry.

(now all that's left is to implement it.  :-) )

[followups to comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains.

--Dave
-- 
System Administrator, Population Research Institute    barr@pop.psu.edu
What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but still runs DOS?
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: dave@revcan.rct.ca (David Blackwood)
Subject: Re: Top level domains (was Re: Mixed format addresses)
Organization: Revenue Canada, Taxation; Office Communications Division
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:41:42 GMT

In article <TRSNYDER.93Jan4145021@vf0031.mcs.drexel.edu> trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder) writes:
>In article <0QvRrAPBBh107h@boombox.apana.org.au> djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel) writes:
>
>   Because (f'r instance) .GOV ought to either mean "Governments of some
>   kind, all over the world" or "World governments".  Well, that's what
>   seems logical to me, anyway.
>
>Seems logical to me too.

>   Philosophicaly, I think the USA would look a lot less arrogant to the
>   rest of The Net if its govt depts/agencies were in gov.us or us.gov.
>   IMHO, the only govt with a right to be at the top level of .gov would
>   be the UN (unless they want to allow all comers).
>
>This is your opinion on how the net should be.  Not everyone agrees. Actually,
>I would probably argue that the UN is a organization, and falls under .org,

A similar debate is currently raging in can.domain too.  I tried
registering as rct.gov.ca and was refused by the ca domain authorities.
It was shortened to rct.ca ostensibly because gov is an American top
level domain anomaly.
-- 
D. J. Blackwood			Room 1139, 400 Cumberland Street
Systems Integration Manager	Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  K1A 0L8
Office Communications Division	voice: +1 613 957 9305, fax: +1 613 952 1095
Revenue Canada, Taxation	email: uunet.ca!revcan!dave, dave@revcan.rct.ca
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: bruce@blilly.uucp (Bruce Lilly)
Subject: Re: Interpretation of RFC-822
Keywords: whitespace, structured headers, destination
Organization: Bruce Lilly
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 02:01:45 GMT
Reply-To: lilb@sony.compuserve.com (Bruce Lilly)

In article <yLmTwB4w165w@valinor.mythical.com>,
 posted to comp.mail.uucp,
 stu@valinor.mythical.com (Stu Labovitz) wrote:

>RFC, here's the question:  Does RFC #822 provide limits (either minimum or
>maximum) upon the number of SPACE characters that separate the "To:" from
>the mailbox on the destination line?  Must there be at least one SPACE,
>and is there any reasonable interpretation to prevent the existance of
>more than one SPACE?

RFC822 does not specify either a minimum or maximum.  According to the rules
in RFC822, it is possible to have no space, and there is no maximum.
Note however that RFC822 recommends that "long" lines be folded.

Depending on the context, other RFCs or specific program implementation
may impose limits. For example, in the context of news articles, at least
one space is required between the header field and the field body[*]. In the
case of mail transmitted via SMTP, very long lines (in excess of 1000
characters at a minimum) may cause problems. And even if lines are folded,
you're likely to have a problem if you have 64k or more LWSP characters
between the header field and its body (the minimum message size limit per
RFC1123).

*	Of course, news articles do not need a To header, but if one is
present it must conform to the rules in RFC1036. That RFC specifically
requires one space after the colon, but it is ambiguous regarding whether
additional space characters are permitted. It says only "additional
information" must occur after the space (which it calls a "blank").

-- 
	Bruce Lilly		blilly!bruce@Broadcast.Sony.COM
					...uunet!sonyusa!sonyd1!blilly!bruce