From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,news.admin.misc,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Clearly NOT a FORGERY
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:30:26 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov12.070041.10433@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.010902.24671@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.161634.7564@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov11.003355.29646@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>
>>Ha! If you aren't in the maps, you may not be reachable at all. 

>The kind of host to which I'm referring would still be reachable using its
>fully-qualified domain name (FQDN).

**********************************************
Kevin lets us know how much he hates uucp. :-)
**********************************************

>I wouldn't call that a "smart" mailer. In fact, I'd probably get the other
>sysadmin to fix his brain-dead software, if I ever saw that happening.
>Additionally, if these "smart" mailers are Internet hosts, such a practice 
>may very likely qualify as a violation of RFC 1123: with regard to the "local 
>part" of a hybrid address (which is what the bangpath is considered, in 
>Internet terms) gateways are supposed to interpret that "as necessary" to 
>route the mail to its destination, and cutting off the path doesn't sound 
>like it qualifies thereunder.

YO, KEVIN, WAKE UP!
And it may well cut it off if another site has that name, or if the path 
isn't recognized. Believe it or not, there are a lot of screwed up sites
out there, and if a node on the path is out, if you don't have a UUCP
registry, your mail may meet the bit bucket.
 
>By comparison, do you know of any smart mailers who cut off FQDN's? If not, 
>then the hosts in question are still reachable via their FQDN's, and don't 
>*NEED* map entries. That was my point. With a little skullduggery on the part 
>of my upstream feed, rotag.mi.org wouldn't need a map entry to get its mail 
>either. But I prefer to maintain one anyway, for added reliability, and to be 
>a good net.citizen. The point is, map entries are not CRITICAL for many folks' 
>mail routing. So it hardly makes sense to flame people, like ncsu.edu, for 
>having out-of-date map entries, or no map entries at all. What's their 
>incentive to keep a complete set of UUCP map entries up to date?

There incentive is having the mail arrive.

>>And the address you are describing (rotag.mi.org)
>>is NOT a UUCP address. UUCP addresses are of the form node.uucp, or
>>wolves.uucp. UUCP addresses are NOT the same as Internet, or ARPANET,
>>or any other net - it's plain old-fashioned UNIX to UNIX Copy Protocol.

>"Plain old-fashioned UUCP"? You mean like this:

Yes. Not domain-coup addressing. :-)

>Script started on Thu Nov 12 00:56:34 1992
>/dev/ttyp0: Not owner
>rotag% uux - -r heifetz.uucp\!rmail nadja@jetsun.weitek.com
>bad system name: heifetz.uucp
>uux failed ( 68 )
>rotag% ^D
>script done on Thu Nov 12 00:57:28 1992

>Gee, I guess you were wrong about "<node>.uucp" being an address
>comprehendable by "plain old-fashioned UUCP", huh? Surprise, surprise.

Give it a rest. Try sending email to the literal address 'user@node.uucp.'
If your tables are up to date, you'll reach my home machine, and receive
a message telling you that you probably didn't really want to talk to
user@node.uucp.

>Trust me on this one, Nadja -- although both are valid addresses for the same
>UUCP machine, a *lot* more mailers will be able to deliver mail reliably to 
>"<user>@rotag.mi.org", than to "<user>@rotag.uucp".

No shit, Sherlock. Especially if rotag.uucp isn't on the maps. :-)
And of course, we won't mention the importance of the records for 
reaching addresses of the FDQN form. :-)

>>A message to a UUCP machine will frequently travel by Internet to the
>>nearest UUCP gateway - and if you are on the UUCP maps, you can always
>>send it via uunet.uu.net. And if you aren't, it may hop around, right
>>back to the sender.

>A gross oversimplification. First of all, if you're a UUCP machine, you could 
>have all the map entries in the world, and STILL not be able to get mail that 
>originates on Internet hosts, unless you have an MX record registered in the 
	[more blather relating to Kevin's poor view of UUCP]

Kevin justifies his failure to keep the routing maps up to date by giving
us examples of what happens when people don't keep the maps up to date...

>>There are some books on UUCP protocols. I suggest you read them.

>Been there. Done that.

Maybe you should take a Reading Comprehension course?

>								- Kevin

nadja@weitek.com

nadja@node.uucp
nadja@node.com

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion