Newsgroups: vmsnet.mail.pmdf
Subject: RE: PMDF 3.2 question about local host aliases
From: "Ned Freed, Postmaster" <ned@hmcvax.claremont.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:51 PST
Organization: The Internet
Resent-From: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:52 PST
Errors-To: epmdf@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU
Resent-Message-Id: <01GILA24CUM88WWTHB@YMIR.CLAREMONT.EDU>
X-Vms-To: IN%"JWMANLY@amhchn.amherst.edu"
X-Vms-Cc: ipmdf

> In the PMDF System Manager's Guide, section 3.2.5.2, it is suggested that
> one avoid the use of the local-host-alias (the second token in the second
> line of a channel block) whenever possible.

Sure. It is not a good idea to have too many names for the same thing.

> Here at Amherst, we are on both BITNET and the Internet.  At the moment,
> our PMDF.CNF file looks something like this:

When you're on both there's no way to have a single name. It cannot possibly
work.

> Note here that our "official host name" (the one listed first in the L
> channel block) is "AMHERST".  Note further that we have to use one of those
> local-host-aliases in the Multinet channel so that the host name in the
> Internet world appears to be "AMHERST.EDU".

This is a perfectly reasonable setup.

> The PMDF Guide further (in 3.2.5.4) suggests that one pick one name to be 
> known by and "stick to it".  Love to.  The question is how?

It is only a suggestion! You cannot possibly make this work when you're on
two networks that have different naming schemes.

> It seems to me that the
> conventional wisdom I've heard suggests that using the full domain name as 
> the official name is the way to go.  Thus, we would like to have 
> "AMHERST.EDU", rather than "AMHERST", be our official host name (which 
> would, as a side effect, mean we could remove the local alias from the 
> Multinet channel.

The reason it is conventional wisdom is that it makes sense to use the name
that's the most visible. Moreover, your users should be seeing the "most
common" address when they look at their own mail. Think of it another way --
this address is what they will hand out to other people. An Internet address
will work on BITNET but not vice versa. So the best course of action is to
use Internet addresses locally if possible.

> BUT, if we do that, what do we do about the a) the BIT_LOCAL channel (won't 
> it start emitting unreplyable FROM: addresses such as "JWMANLY@AMHERST.EDU" 
> which would, for example, cause an RSCS-only site to barf), and b) all the 
> other channels in GATES.CHANS, generated from XMAILER.NAMES.

Yes, if you choose to use your Internet address as your official local host
name you will have to switch to specifying a local host alias on all your
BITNET channels. This is easy to do; BITNET_DOMAINS.COM lets you do it for
the channels (most of them) that it generates.

> The question is, then, what is the "recommended" way of handling this 
> conflict? The way we have done it, or by doing something more of the form:

> ...

Either way is fine.

> Note the local-host-alias for the BIT_LOCAL channel, and I assume that the
> GATES.CHANS file would have to be created using the BITNET_ALIAS symbol in 
> the  BITNET_DOMAINS.COM procedure.

yes.

> (This has the added benefit that mail addressed to IN%"JWMANLY", for 
> example, has a from address of "AMHERST.EDU".)

Again, yes.

> So which of these do you suggest, or is there some other way of configuring
> things that I have missed?

There are various other schemes, but none that avoid having to have more than
one name.

					Ned