From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: problems with the UUCP maps--duplicate n
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:05:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.173519.5079@til.til.com> erik@til.com writes:
>
>So, to summarize, you propose having each system that defines a uucp map
>entry have a mailbox that could be queried for the map entry.  This is
>simple enough to do, but I'm not sure how it improves the situation over
>having the system routinely send its map entry to rutgers via email.

Depends if they do the maps at regular intervals.  Each area coordinator,
while having standards to meet, might not always do the maps on a regular
cycle.  When I first sent in my map entry, it took six months for the new
maps to come out.  (I believe it was due to a change in the area  project
coordinator.)  If they don't mind getting 6 entries per site for each
map the put out (read that as 6 month of entries) and they are able to
sort through them to find the most recent, fine.  (I mention the sorting
through them... probably only as a poke at your comment about the UUCP
mapping coord. having to send out messages to each system... of course
automation exists for both of those problems.... no offense meant... it's
just late.)


>In the cron-based approach, each system defining a uucp map entry would be
>responsible for sending in a new map entry before the old one expired.  The
>Coordinators (sound like a bad 60's Sci Fi movie to you?) could choose this
>expiration period arbitrarily.  If a new map entry doesn't arrive in time,
>the old map entry is declared dead and discarded.

I'd say, maybe two or three mapping periods of no entries from a site before
that site is deleted... just in case of any unforseen problems somewhere.

>
>In the mailbox-based approach, The Coordinators would have to send an email
>[...]
>The problem I see with this is that it actually appears to *increase*, not
>*decrease* the network traffic, in that for each map update there is an
>email query *and* an emailed map entry.

As stated above... depends upon if the maps are done at regular intervals
or not.

>
>I don't see how having a cron job sending in the map entry leads to
>confusion when the sysadmin changes over, nor do I see how having the
>mailbox improves that situation.  The cron job is as much of a data trail
>as the mailbox, as far as I can see.  Your comment about the mailbox
>approach being easier to handle on non-Unix systems is well taken, however.

OK, You've converted me.  As for a CRON mailing of a pre-prepared site
entry, that should be no problem on ANY uucp system.  The automatic
configuration is a different story, but that does not seem like it needs
to be a requirement in order for the CRON mailing to work.

>
>As regards the entire bandwidth argument:
>

You know...  here we're talking about uucp...  I just plumb didn't think
straight.   

Whatever method comes about... (will it be fixed?)  as long as there is
some KNOWN standard that can be implemented by most (99%?) of the sites
in the project, thats fine with me.

If the standard is a monthly CRON job, then a subset of standards could
cover manualy-written-entries, CRON-written-entries, and lest we forget,
the proxy-written-entries:  The entries written by a service provider on
behalf of a subscribing system.  Who would be responsible in a case like
that.  The service provider, or the site manager.  Which site should the
entry come from.  [Yikes,  This would be more of a problem in my proposal
for a polled map than it would for a CRONed map.]

Are there any Mapping Project Managers (didn't have to use the SciFi term)
out there with any comments? 

       tweek@netcom.com  tweek@tweekco.uucp  WWIVNet 5@5058  4@5056 
          I'd rather get my cable service from the phone company,
                than my phone service from the cable company.

Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.unix.ultrix