From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Mutlu violating Usenet RFC
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:03:56 GMT

In article <18mte2INNa09@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu 
(George William Herbert) writes:
>In article <BuCD3r.KIJ@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU 
>(John Stanley) writes:
>>In article <18m78pINN6nm@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu 
>>(George William Herbert) writes:

>>>to as "forgeries" and are bad 

>>An opinion. Not universal in scope.

>>> and two, there is no way
>>>for feedback (replies) to be sent to the sender.

>>Feedback can be sent in the same manner that I am sending you feedback.
>>Reason two is specious.

>	These statements were intended to explain "why" the RFC is
>and should be the way it is.  Rebutting them does not change the RFC.

Those statements are your opinion, presented as fact. Your claim that
anonymous postings leave no recourse for feedback is patently false:
posting replies is always possible. Your claim that the RFC (the WRONG
RFC, BTW) outlaws the zuma.UUCP address is also your opinion. There is
nothing in the correct RFC that says that the From: address must be
mailable from everywhere on the net. Many sites CANNOT mail to .UUCP
addresses.

>>>	The "Mutlu" posts of late fail to contain a valid
>>> From: header field: 

In your opinion...

>>>they all contain the email site of zuma.uucp,
>>>which no name server or the Network Information Center will identify
>>>as being real.  Thus the post all contain intentionally false
>>>email addresses and are invalid Usenet messages per RFC850.

>>Neither name service nor NIC has anything to do with UUCP sites. If
>
>This is simply untrue, John.  Every site, Internet or Usenet that is connected
>to our greater email net has to have a valid domain name registered
>with the Network Information Center.  

That is simply untrue, George William. Even when you change the claim
from "the email site of zuma.UUCP" to the generic "valid domain name"
(as you did), it is untrue. 

The NIC has NOTHING to do with the pseudo-domain .UUCP. (I suppose,
technically, they have, at some point, promised not to create a real,
honest domain, with or without subordinate clauses separated by commas
(or parentheses), with the same name.  Claiming that this is accepting
responsibility for registering sites for that pseudo-domain is
stretching things a little too far, for they certainly do NOT.)

But your original claim was not against the DOMAIN name, for if it
were, then you must be claiming that ALL sites who post using a .UUCP
address are non-existant, for they are all using an unregistered
domain. And, as a side effect, none of them show up in the NIC
database, nor in the domain name servers. Try it: whois fozzie.uucp.
No match for "FOZZIE.UUCP". Whois soda.berkeley.edu.  No match for
"SODA.BERKELEY.EDU". Whois uunet.uucp? No match for "UUNET.UUCP".

How about this name service stuff? 

skyking 101: nslookup
> set type=any
> server uunet.uu.net
Default Server:  uunet.uu.net
Address:  137.39.1.2
> uunet.uucp
Server:  uunet.uu.net
Address:  137.39.1.2
*** uunet.uu.net can't find uunet.uucp: Non-existent domain

Are you now going to tell me that UUNET should disconnect itself from
the net because their UUCP address is unknown to both the NIC and to
its own name server? No, the discussion about the NIC and name servers
is a red herring -- nothing says that a From: address must be in either
one. The fact that it isn't means NOTHING as far as meeting the
requirements of the USENET RFC. 

>a UUCP site).  Any site which isn't registered isn't on the net, by
>definition. 

Sorry, but your definition does not match reality. 

> If you don't believe me, ask the NIC or UUNET.

Neither the NIC nor UUNET are the sole arbiters of who is and is not
"on the net." If they are, then you had better disconnect
soda.berkeley.edu, because IT isn't in the NIC database, either.

Xref: sparky news.admin:7483 misc.legal.computing:2082