HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 21:27:41 +1100
Reply-To: David.Keegel@apana.org.au
Organization: Private site, Melbourne, Australia.

In <1TauwB3w165w@willard.atl.ga.us> dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson) writes:
>> .UUCP sucks because implies that a particular transport is being
>> used.  Names, addresses, routes, and transports are all distinct
>> characteristics.

>... unique to each different networking system in use.  *Not* every
>networking system in the Universe uses the FQDN business.  This is
>Karl_Kleinpaste's point?

But what is this concept of a "networking system"?  I consider all
of the addresses that I've had to be part of the same "networking
system".  The best word I know for it is "The Matrix".

I've had accounts on machines that were connected to The Internet
with TCP/IP, ACSnet with SUN-III or MHSnet, other sites with UUCP, 
APANA with UUCP or often a combination of the above.  I could send
mail from one to the other.  If I can get them to work, I can soon
add DECnet and All-In-1 to the list.

If I want to send mail to a particular machine, I don't want to have
to care whether it connects to the world with UUCP or TCP/IP or avian
carrier.  And I certainly don't want to change my address book because
they decided to use SLIP instead of UUCP as a transport to their link.

If UUCP is so different to every other transport layer in the world
that it causes sites which use it to be a separate "networking system"
that cannot sensibly correspond with other networking systems, then I
don't think it's doing a very good job.

My philosophy is that where possible the transport layer used between
my and my neighbor should be invisible to everyone except ourselves.

-- 
<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.
From: rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:43:40 GMT
Organization: Naval Medical Research & Development Command

In article <C0Lw2o.H82@wimsey.bc.ca> sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>In article <1ilqa3INNhfh@wintermute.phys.psu.edu> kenh@leps5.phys.psu.edu (Ken Hornstein) writes:
>>In article <5w43wB5w165w@willard.atl.ga.us> dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson) writes:
>>I hate to be rude, but I feel that the question we should be asking here
>>is not "How can we do this?", but rather "Why should we bother?".  Sure,
>>there's lots of entries in the UUCP maps, but it's pretty obvious that the
>>current trend is to get registered in a domain.  How many entries in the maps
>>are even correct anymore?  UUCP is fine as a transport mechanism, but as a
>>network I don't think it can cut it anymore.
>>
>>I don't think he was saying that you shouldn't be able to find out the
>>transport method, just that you should be able to use the same addressing
>>scheme no matter if you're using UUCP, SMTP, or carrier pigeon.
>
>I have to agree with this post. One addressing scheme. Get those uucp
>hosts FQDN's. This can easily be handled by the site that connects them
>to the internet.
>
That is not as easy as it sounds.  There are thousands of UUCP sites who
are multiple hops from the Internet via multiple paths.  The host that
eventually drops their mail into the Internet may be different for each
message.  That host may be totally unaware that they are the connection.
In this case, what site acts as the MX?  The originating site only has an
agreement to exchange mail with it's neighbors.  Now what?

--
LCDR Mike Dobson, Sys Admin for | Internet: rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil
nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil      | UUCP:   ...uunet!mimsy!nmrdc1!rdc30
AT&T 3B2/600G Sys V R 3.2.3     | BITNET:   dobson@usuhsb or nrd0mxd@vmnmdsc
CMC TCP/IP for 3B2 V 2.6.1      | 
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.sendmail,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.questions,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: DNS name servers
Followup-To: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:22:13 GMT

[followups cut down]
LS> == Larry Snyder <larry@gator.use.com>

 LS> We are using a cached name server (it works fine, and it appears
 LS> that as the machine is up and running for a couple of days, it
 LS> really gets faster since I assume the name to IP addresses are
 LS> in the cache verses requiring a lookup via the DNS - does anyone
 LS> know of a good book that explains how and why this works? and what
 LS> would be required to run a complete namesever locally).

The new OR&A Nutshell book on DNS & BIND is quite good.  I've been doing
this stuff for a while, and I still found it useful (and learned stuff from
it).

As for "complete", don't bother; you don't want to save stuff to disk that
you're not being authoritative for, because the TTLs will get stale.
(Sure, that means it takes a day or two for your cache to fill, but that's
life; the same thing happens to your disk buffers...)
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
From: rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:36:22 GMT
Organization: Naval Medical Research & Development Command

In article <C0qF29.GBG@wimsey.bc.ca> sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>In article <C0pG4u.1Lx@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil> rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson) writes:
>>>I have to agree with this post. One addressing scheme. Get those uucp
>>>hosts FQDN's. This can easily be handled by the site that connects them
>>>to the internet.
>>>
>>That is not as easy as it sounds.  There are thousands of UUCP sites who
>>are multiple hops from the Internet via multiple paths.  The host that
>>eventually drops their mail into the Internet may be different for each
>>message.  That host may be totally unaware that they are the connection.
>>In this case, what site acts as the MX?  The originating site only has an
>>agreement to exchange mail with it's neighbors.  Now what?
>
>Probably a bad idea to set things up like that in the first place. If you
>expect to receive mail via an Internet host some arrangements have to be
>made to let it know how to do it. Trying to pass this information along
>with the message as part of the address just does not have a high success
>rate. It does work in some cases, and if you want to receive your mail 
>that way then keep doing it. 
>
Whether it was a bad idea to begin with is somewhat irrelavent since that
is the way things are now.  Also, when the UUCP network was set up, it was
the logical method.  The bang path in the envelope provided all the info
needed to get the traffic through.  Many of these sites never expected to
receive mail from Internet sites when they joined the UUCP network.

>But if you want trouble free mail, make the arrangements, pay the bills
>and if necessary upgrade your mail software. Your correspondants will
>thank you.
>
Many sites can't afford any better than they have now.  Do we just cast
them aside without any thought whatsoever?  Eventually, as the electronic
superhighway becomes a reality, network connecivity will reach the vast
majority of homes with no more expense than current phone or cable service.
In the meantime, we should try to co-operate as best we can by improving
the existing tools so they work more reliably.  This includes dealing with
the UUCP zone as it exists today while encouraging those that can to
migrate to FQDN.

Mike 
         "Next FQDN won't be good enough, we'll all need X.400"
                               --Net.elitist

--
LCDR Mike Dobson, Sys Admin for | Internet: rdc30@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil
nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil      | UUCP:   ...uunet!mimsy!nmrdc1!rdc30
AT&T 3B2/600G Sys V R 3.2.3     | BITNET:   dobson@usuhsb or nrd0mxd@vmnmdsc
CMC TCP/IP for 3B2 V 2.6.1      | 
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: o.CRepin-leblond@ic.ac.UK (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Subject: Re: Top level domains (was Re: Mixed format addresses)
Organization: Imperial College, London, UK.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 11:09:51 GMT

>From: djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel)
>Subject: Re: Top level domains (was Re: Mixed format addresses)
>Message-ID: <bKjTrAfPBh107h@boombox.apana.org.au>
>Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 21:04:11 +1100
>
>In <9301061622.AA26985@cscmgb.cc.ic.ac.uk> o.CRepin-leblond@ic.ac.UK (Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, Olivier M.J. writes:
>>.gov is a field that can be used internationally. I know for sure
>>that .gov is used in Canada as a top level domain. abs.gov is
>>hence possible since .gov means "Governments of some kind, all
>>over the world".
>
>Aha.  So it's not arrogant, just stupid.  (Lumping all governmental
>agencies all over the world into one flat name space sounds pretty
>stupid IMHO.)  However, stupid would be more forgivable because it
>may just mean that they didn't think this through in the early days.
>
[...]

>Does the same apply to MIL?  If so, what is INT for?

As far as I know until now only the US military has used MIL as a
top level domain. However geographically speaking, MIL is present
in countries other than USA due to the presence of US bases in
foreign countries.

INT is the International Field. It is currently used only by NATO.
 
Cheers,



-- 
Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, Digital Comms. Section, Elec. Eng. Department
 Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London SW7 2BT, UK
       Internet/Bitnet: <foobar@ic.ac.uk> - Janet: <foobar@uk.ac.ic>
From: kenh@leps5.phys.psu.edu (Ken Hornstein)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Date: 10 Jan 1993 23:13:01 GMT
Organization: Penn State, Laboratory for Elementary Particle Science

In article <1993Jan10.141201.22273@blilly.uucp> lilb@sony.compuserve.com (Bruce Lilly) writes:
>In article <1ilqa3INNhfh@wintermute.phys.psu.edu>,
> posted to comp.mail.uucp,
> kenh@leps5.phys.psu.edu (Ken Hornstein) wrote:
>>The problem is (as it has been explained MANY times) that these
>>inconsistencies exist because no one has come up with a reasonable method for
>>people on the Internet to route mail to the UUCP network.
>
>I've seen a few reasonable methods presented here.

Like what?

>>I hate to be rude, but I feel that the question we should be asking here
>>is not "How can we do this?", but rather "Why should we bother?".
>
>The answer (to "Why should we bother") is that if you want mail between
>different mail systems to work, you have to find a way to make it work. That
>applies not only to mail from Inernet sites to UUCP sites without Internet
>domain names, but to BITNET sites without Internet domain names and to X.400
>addressees as well.

Most BITNET sites also have domain names.  Besides, BITNET is dying as of late.
In the past year more nodes have been dropped than added.  The UUCP addressing
scheme just doesn't make sense today.  It would probably be best if UUCP died
as well.

>It also applies to the reverse direction, and indeed the
>UUCP maps do provide a means to get mail from the UUCP world to BITNET and
>to at least some parts of the Internet. A chauvinistic "let the rest of the
>world convert to the Internet way of doing things" is no more appropriate
>than the "let them eat cake" which has been attributed to Marie Antoinette.

It would be nice if there _was_ a way to gate mail painlessly, but there isn't.
Besides, as it's been pointed out, a lot of the map data is incorrect.  How are
we supposed to route mail to a network that doesn't have correct internal
routing data?

--Ken
From: landis@sugs.tware.com (Hale Landis)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Reply addresses from ATTMAIL.COM
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 13:40:09 GMT
Organization: SUGS

I have sent mail to POSTMASTER@ATTMAIL.COM and I have received
no reply yet.  Maybe someone out there can answer this one...

I have several friends that get their net mail via ATTMAIL.COM.
Also, at work, my company uses ATTMAIL.COM to get mail into a VAX
based mail system.  In all cases, when I receive mail at any of
my net accounts around the country, from my friends who are stuck
using ATTMAIL.COM, the reply address in their message is
incorrect.

For example, if a friends mail address is

   mhs!bigcorp/g=john/s=doe@attmail.com

when John Doe sends me a message, the reply address in that
message will be

   bigcorp/g=john/s=doe@mhs.attmail.com

If I reply to this address, ATTMAIL.COM will bounce the message and
say that MHS is an UNKNOWN DOMAIN or UNKNOWN HOST.  What gives here?

It seems to me that ATTMAIL.COM must know what/who MHS is
otherwise why would it need it to deliever mail to BIGCORP?  And
why would ATTMAIL.COM not understand a reply address it probably
generated itself?

Anyone from ATTMAIL out there reading this?

--------------------------------------------------------
Hale Landis                           Santa Cruz, CA USA
408-423-4017          -or-                  408-439-2443
landis@sugs.tware.com -or- hale_landis@notes.seagate.com
--------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: o.CRepin-leblond@ic.ac.UK (Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, Olivier M.J. 
      Crepin-Leblond)
Subject: re: Top level domains (was Re: Mixed format addresses)
Organization: Imperial College, London, UK.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:22:29 GMT


>From: trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder)
>Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
>Subject: Re: Top level domains (was Re: Mixed format addresses)
>Message-ID: <TRSNYDER.93Jan4145021@vf0031.mcs.drexel.edu>
>Date: 4 Jan 93 19:50:21 GMT
>
>In article <0QvRrAPBBh107h@boombox.apana.org.au> djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel) writes:
>
>   Because (f'r instance) .GOV ought to either mean "Governments of some
>   kind, all over the world" or "World governments".  Well, that's what
>   seems logical to me, anyway.
>
>Seems logical to me too.
>
>   Now tell me, would the US Govt be happy to have the Australian Bureau
>   of Statistics being called "abs.gov"?  Or does the US Govt claim to
>   govern the world?
>

.gov is a field that can be used internationally. I know for sure
that .gov is used in Canada as a top level domain. abs.gov is
hence possible since .gov means "Governments of some kind, all
over the world".

Hope this helps.

O.


-- 
Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, Digital Comms. Section, Elec. Eng. Department
 Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London SW7 2BT, UK
       Internet/Bitnet: <foobar@ic.ac.uk> - Janet: <foobar@uk.ac.ic>
From: msp@pos.apana.org.au (Mark Purcell)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Top level domains (was Re: Mixed format addresses)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 06:52:42 +1100
Organization: Private site: Sydney, Australia

In <C0E6HJ.4B3@revcan.rct.ca> dave@revcan.rct.ca (David Blackwood) writes:

>A similar debate is currently raging in can.domain too.  I tried
>registering as rct.gov.ca and was refused by the ca domain authorities.
>It was shortened to rct.ca ostensibly because gov is an American top
>level domain anomaly.

Well I guess us Australians have followed suit with our Americian buddies.

.gov.au is Australian Government.  :-)

Mark

-- 
msp@pos.apana.org.au	msp@pos.dialix.oz.au
Mark Purcell, 62/25 Market Street, SYDNEY NSW 2000.  (02) 283 5598
From: tc@nynashamn.telesoft.se (Torbjorn Carlsson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Trouble configuring UUCP for modems on a Xyplex
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:46:01 GMT
Organization: Telesoft Norden AB
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

I have some Supra V42bis modems hooked up to a Xyplex terminal server,
used both for incomming and outgoing calls, and are trying to use this
modem-pool for UUCP.

The way to access the modems from our Suns is to use telnet, as in

% telnet modem
Trying modem ...
Connected to modem.
Escape character is '^]'.
(Remote)(Remote)network/38400

AT
OK

^]
telnet> quit
%

The Xyplex is setup to give me the first available modem in the pool.

I am trying to figure out a way to setup my Devices and Dialers files
to make this happen, but the documentation (AnswerBook) is a bit cryptic.
Is it possible at all, or does the uucp "port" have to be a /dev/something ?

Even if I get UUCP to connect to the modem, how do I force it to do the
telnet disconnect after UUCP is done ?


					... Torbjorn
-- 
  Torbjvrn Carlsson		: Internet:
  Telesoft Norden AB		: Torbjorn.Carlsson@nynashamn.telesoft.se  
  Utsiktsvagen 10, 		: Phone: +46-8 52069012 
  Nyndshamn, Sweden		: Fax:   +46-8 52020965
From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Mixed format addresses 
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 01:32:47 GMT
Organization: Crynwr Software

In article <k1auwB4w165w@willard.atl.ga.us> dawson@willard.atl.ga.us writes:

   nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:

   > In article <H9TkwB1w165w@willard.UUCP> dawson@willard.UUCP writes:
   > 
   >    How will that help?  You'll still NOT deliver mail to valid sites.  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.
   > 
   > There is no such thing as a site in the .UUCP domain, and such sites
   > are not valid sites.  willard.UUCP only tells me that someone,
   > somewhere, transports mail to a UUCP host called willard.  I don't
   > CARE how you get your email.  You could get it via carrier pigeon
   > for all I care.  Would you advocate registering the .PIGEON domain if
   > you did?  Why not register a .SLIP domain or a .PPP domain?

   The voice of the Internet Gestapo.  Thanks, I'm really glad to hear that
   I don't exist, that I'm a non-site.

Thus says <dawson@willard.atl.ga.us>.

   > There is no point in trying to convince you that you're wrong; the
   > fact that people can't send you mail should convince you.  I see that
   > you're getting a FQDN, so why do you continue to argue for .UUCP??

   Did I argue for .UUCP?  Or, have you totally missed the larger context
   I've been striving for?

No, you're arguing that everyone should run pathalias.  Yeah, well,
remember HOSTS.TXT?  It got old.  Pathalias has gotten old.

   >    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.
   > 
   > I suppose that, before the advent of MX records and MX-smart mailers,
   > your statement would have been correct.  It is now losing wrong.  Is
   > crynwr.com "provably on the Internet"?  No, I have no IP access at all.
   > 
   > Now, you're probably going to reply that even though I'm not on the
   > Internet, my MX and SOA records are.

   Exactly.

   > So what??  I pay PSI $25/month to maintain those records.  If
   > they piss me off, I go to someone else. I don't care that I
   > can't ``vi named.crynwr''; they don't need to be changed because
   > they work.

   Good for you.

Well, weren't you unhappy because you couldn't change your own DNS
entries?  I can't change mine either, but I don't really care,
because the people who maintain my DNS records are my wage slaves.

-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
Crynwr Software           Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St.              315-268-1925 Voice  |  LPF member - ask me about
Potsdam, NY 13676         315-268-9201 FAX    |  the harm software patents do.
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.sys.sgi.bugs
From: chk@alias.com (C. Harald Koch)
Subject: Strange UUCP PRoblem (SGI's HDB)
Organization: Alias Research, Inc., Toronto ON Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:18:12 GMT


I'm getting strange PERMISSION DENIED errors when a remote site tries to
send files to us, when the target directories do not exist. The error only
occurs sometimes (i.e. even if the dirs don't exist, they usually get
created).

Here's the output from a uucico -x5 that shows the problem:


[ .... ]

Remote Requested:
uunet.ca!/slow/archive/ftp/oes.orst.edu/pub/mirror/amiga.physik.unizh.ch/amiga/hard/hack/audiodig.lha --> alias!~/ftp/oes.orst.edu/pub/mirror/amiga.physik.unizh.ch/amiga/hard/hack/audiodig.lha (mailserv)
SLAVE - filename: /usr/spool/uucppublic/ftp/oes.orst.edu/pub/mirror/amiga.physik.unizh.ch/amiga/hard/hack/audiodig.lha
mkdir - /usr
mkdir - /usr/spool
mkdir - /usr/spool/uucppublic
mkdir - /usr/spool/uucppublic/ftp
mkdir - /usr/spool/uucppublic/ftp/oes.orst.edu
mkdir - /usr/spool/uucppublic/ftp/oes.orst.edu/pub
mkdir - /usr/spool/uucppublic/ftp/oes.orst.edu/pub/mirror
mkdir - /usr/spool/uucppublic/ftp/oes.orst.edu/pub/mirror/amiga.physik.unizh.ch
mkdir - /usr/spool/uucppublic/ftp/oes.orst.edu/pub/mirror/amiga.physik.unizh.ch/amiga
mkdir - /usr/spool/uucppublic/ftp/oes.orst.edu/pub/mirror/amiga.physik.unizh.ch/amiga/hard
mkdir - /usr/spool/uucppublic/ftp/oes.orst.edu/pub/mirror/amiga.physik.unizh.ch/amiga/hard/hack
CAN'T SETUID 0
wmesg 'S'N2
Failed: Access Denied

The Permissions entry for the site is:

MACHINE=uunet.ca REQUEST=yes SENDFILES=yes MYNAME=alias \
        READ=/usr/spool/uucppublic:/usr/store/ftp/uunet \
        WRITE=/usr/spool/uucppublic:/usr/store/ftp/uunet \
        COMMANDS=rmail


I can't figure out what's wrong. Has anyone seen this before?

--
Main's Law: For every       | C. Harald Koch  Alias Research, Inc. Toronto, ON
action, there is an equal   | chk@alias.com                (work-related mail)
and opposite goverment      | chk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca     (permanent address)
program.                    | VE3TLA@VE3OY.#SCON.ON.CA.NA            (AMPRNet)
From: cahuja@twerp.ease.arco.com (Chander Ahuja)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Getting a file across from a remote site
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:20:48 GMT
Reply-To: cahuja@twerp.ease.arco.com (Chander Ahuja)
Distribution: world
Organization: Atlantic Richfield Company, Dallas , TX



Have asked this question before but either i missed the anwser or no one replied.

want to:  uucp a file from system 'remote' when the available connection
is:
      mysite -> intermediate -> remote     (arrow show who calls who)

so sitting on 'mysite' i try:

 uux inter!uux (remote!uucp) ((file-to-get)) ((inter!mysite!~/))

but the uux at inter refuses with  remote access permission denied
even though the systems file says COMMANDS=ALL

inter and mysite are both SUN's running HDB (?) 

what gives....?

Pls reply by email as i seem to have missed any anwsers previously given...

-chander
cahuja@ease.arco.com
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp