Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 09:20:40 CDT
From:         Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Internet User Addresses

4 Messages, 158 Lines
*-----
From: willis@unssun.scs.unr.edu (Glee Willis)
Subject: Email address lookups
Since posts to PACS-L seeking institutional email addresses are
becoming all too common, I have obtained permission from Ric to
cross-post one of his recent INFO-NETS posts, as a service to
PACS-L neophytes.  There are many ways to determine email address
information (including foreign addresses) without posting to lists.
This is just _one_ of them.  (I have replied, privately, to several
PACS-L posts, enumerating others).  Thanks, in advance, to the
moderators, for agreeing to post this.          -- Glee

                   -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
-[name deleted],
-
-This is the first time I've seen your name on Info-Nets mail so you may not
-know that, despite what you may have heard, Info-Nets is not supposed to be
-a place to find addresses unless other attempts have failed.
-
-If you had sent mail
-
- To:       service@nic.ddn.mil
- Subject:  whois University of West Virginia
-
-you'd have received 'No match for "UNIVERSITY OF WEST VIRGINIA".'
-
-If you then tried
-
- Subject:  whois west virginia university
-
-you would get
-
- West Virginia University (NET-WVU)
-   Telecommunications Department/ Network Services
-   2108 University Avenue
-   Morgantown,  WV 26505
-   Netname: WVU
-   Netnumber: 157.182.0.0
-   Coordinator:
-      Fritz, Jeffrey  (JF1241)  jfritz@wvnvm.wvnet.edu      (304)293 - 2060
-
-Thus, it appears that you should be able to get more specific assistance
-from postmaster@wvnvm.wvnet.edu.  As a general rule, it is better to ask
-postmaster@... before contacting a host administrator, who may have no
-responsibility whatsoever for responding to address inquiries.
-
-Ric <nauen@wrair-emh1.army.mil>  <nauen%wrmain.decnet@detrick-emh1.army.mil>
-           ^^^^^Walter Reed Army Institute of Research
-        U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command
*-----
From: Elizabeth Koonz <KOONZE@BAYLOR.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Database of Internet user addresses
Regarding Steve Herro's post on the DDN Network:

The DDN (Defense Data Network) is a maintained by the military, right?
Isn't there some academically/commercially-maintained equivalent to this?
Just wondering . . .

Beth Koonz (koonze@baylor.edu)
Coordinator of Automation Services
Baylor University Libraries
Waco, Texas
*----
From:    JUDYK@LIB.TECHNION.AC.IL
Subject: NIC a general Internet directory??
I too was overjoyed when I heard about the NIC -- BUT on logging
in there and browsing, I realised that it's not a general directory.
It seems to be confined to Network Administrators plus military
personnel (well, that's the vast majority anyhow). This was
confirmed by my local network guru, who said the DDN NIC is primarily
intended as a database of network administrators (who are automatically
added).

I therefore did not register with it. And while we sure need a general
network directory, I'm wondering if we shouldn't check with the
administrators of the NIC before signing on wholesale. I searched it
for quite a few people whom I know have email accounts, in the States.
It seemed really low on people from the academic world; and the number
of Smiths on it suggested it's really low on entries, period.
Does this mean we should all register en masse, or perhaps that its
owners don't INTEND it to be a general-purpose vehicle? Will they
be happy if a couple of hundred thousand eager Telnetters sign on?
(don't laugh, that's what it'd take, wouldn't it, to make a directory
a useful worldwide tool?)

Is there someone out there with closer connections than I have to
the U.S. military -- :-) -- who could answer these questions?

 --------------------------------------------------
| Judy Koren,                                      |
| Head, Technical Services                         |
| The Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology   |
| Haifa, Israel.                                   |
|                                                  |
| Email: judyk@lib.technion.ac.il                  |
|    or: lbjudy@vmsa.technion.ac.il                |
*-----
From: Craig A. Summerhill <craig@cni.org>
Subject: Re: E-Mail Address Directories

The main problem with the nic.ddn.mil database is that it is a *central*
repository of such addresses.  I believe that you will find a fair number
of "engineering" types in the network who believe that such a central
approach to the management of this type of data will not scale much beyond
the current size of the network (whatever that is -- :*) ).  And although
I'll probably be burned at the stake for heresy by the librarians, I want
to say that I have an MILS and I agree with this analysis.

At the recent Internet Engineering Task Force meeting in San Diego (March
16-20, 1992) I attending a meeting of the DNS (Domain Name System) Working
Group.  During this meeting, I heard an open remark addressed to the floor
to the effect that there are currently 8.0 FTE working on nothing but
maintaining the top level domain name tables and the administration of
Internet Protocol addresses at nic.ddn.mil.  With the recognition that many
of these machines (and respective IPs) are time-sharing systems which support
multiple simultaneous logins, I think you can quickly see the type of
data management that would be required to centrally manage *one* database
of e-mail addresses.  The political/fiscal improbabilities are numerous...

Which brings us to Billy Barron's posting re: X.500:

Billy Barron <billy@unt.edu> writes:
>Longterm, everybody agrees X.500 is the solution.  There seems to be no doubt
>as far as I can tell that X.500 is going to take over for Global Directory
>Services, but vendors are slow to implement it.  If you wanna complain, talk
>to the vendors of networking software.

"Longterm" is a relatively subjective term in the network time frame, but I
believe Billy hits the nail on center with two points.  First, X.500 is the
most promising technology for management of white pages directory services.
The chief advantage of X.500 is the manner in which the database can be
distributed across multiple hosts on the network.  This allows data to be
broken down into smaller more palatable chunks.  Secondly, there are very
few working X.500 implementations in the States, mainly due to a lack of
commercially (or for that matter public domain) software.  Perhaps, I
exceed the boundaries of my knowledge here, but as far as I am aware, the
only X.500 directory server agent which is available in the United States
is QUIPU (which most people will recognize as WHOIS).  User access to the
distributed database is managed by directory user agents (DUAs).  If you're
on a machine which can run SMTP, TELNET, or FTP, you can probably find
a DUA that will work on your OS also.

At the aforementioned IETF meeting, and the recent Spring Task Force
meeting of the Coalition for Networked Information, there was "preliminary"
discussion of a joint IETF/CNI X.500 project.  (NOTE the EMPHASIS on
preliminary).  At this point, it would be pre-mature for me to describe the
course of this discussion, but suffice it to say that we're interested in
accelerating the current state of X.500 implementations.  I will, of course,
keep you appraised of developments via this list and other CNI lists.

--
   Craig A. Summerhill, Systems Coordinator
   Coalition for Networked Information
   1527 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
   Washington, D.C.   20036
   Internet:  craig@cni.org
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU