From: djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel)
Newsgroups: comp.bbs.waffle,comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 12:14:35 +1100
Reply-To: David.Keegel@apana.org.au
Organization: Private site, Melbourne, Australia.

In <H9TkwB1w165w@willard.UUCP> dawson@willard.UUCP (Willard Dawson) writes:
>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.

[[ Nit picking (sorry): "a valid DNS domain" would be a better way of
phrasing it since none (or almost none) of the nodes in .UUCP would
be on The Internet.  The DNS doesn't route mail -- DNS is a database
(albeit widely distributed).  Of course since the DNS contains the
information needed to route mail around The Internet, your meaning
is clear. ]]

>Seems like we could munge something that would not break existing DNS/
>SMTP software, but that would rather add functionality.  That those don't
>do these things now is not really a point to be considered.  It's the
>future of email we're scheming.  If we can manage to agree that the
>Internet, and other networks, do indeed have a future, we might also come
>to terms with the idea that some people are going to think it a neat idea
>to be able to send mail from sites on one network to another in a
>predictable fashion.

Hooks are provided by/in the DNS to solve this problem in a number
of ways -- the problem is largely a human one.

For instance if one or more sites were prepared to accept (& deliver!)
all mail from the Internet to UUCP sites which the Internet sending node
did not know how to route itself, this could be implemented with a set
of *.UUCP MXes (as I've mentioned before).

Or if some programmer type was prepared to write a script/program which
takes the UUCP maps as input and writes out a text file with MXes the
DNS could read as the authoritative data for .UUCP., and some Internet
site was prepared to run this on a regular basis to advertise MXes for
individual .UUCP sites in the DNS, this should also solve the "problem".

Note that since in this second scenario the "hard work" is a text->
text translation and therefore can be some by someone without access
to (or intimate knowledge of) either The Internet (even an internet)
or the UUCP network.

Of course, this assumes that the adminstrators of the root domain (the
NIC) are prepared to delegate the .UUCP domain for this purpose.  Again
largely a human (political?) problem rather than a technical one.

>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.

There is absolutely no need to be on The Internet, but (if you want to
receive mail from it or through it) there is a need to be `advertised'
on The Internet.  This means having an MX record in the DNS.

I don't think The Internet has taken "the easy way out".  They designed
a system (the DNS) which would not only serve their needs (as IP-connected
hosts) but also allow easy specification of a gateway (or a few equivalent
gateways) for foreign networks.

For instance, from memory, all mail to Papua New Guinea (.PG) is delivered
to an Internet host (munnari.oz.au) in Melbourne, Australia and then sent
using a network (protocol) called ACSnet from there to PNG.

Perhaps it was arrogant of The Internet to have designed a system which
could encompass all the electronic mail networks of the world which *The
Internet* maintains, and which *forces* a user@dom.ain syntax.  But the
reality is that The Internet *is* the backbone for world e-mail (as far
as I'm concerned anyway), and some network has to have a mechanism for
delivering mail to all other networks.

The difficulty with *.UUCP (and perhaps *.BITNET) is that there are lots
of gateways between it and the Internet and no one has set up a reasonable
way for Internet hosts to choose the appropriate gateway (unless they run
pathalias, but there are problems with that too because the Internet is
not store-and-forward with a small set of neighbors like UUCP or ACSnet).
 

-- 
<David.Keegel@apana.org.au>  <werple!tuple!boombox!djk>  Tel: +61 3 593-1460
aka: djk@boombox.apana.org.au, djk@cs.mu.oz.au.  Formerly: djk@bby.com.au.
Newsgroups: comp.bbs.waffle