HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@twg.bc.ca (Bill Irwin)
Subject: Trouble configuring UUCP on TCP/IP
Resent-From: mmdf@xenitec.on.ca
Submit-To: scogen@xenitec.on.ca
Reply-To: bill@twg.bc.ca (Bill Irwin)
Organization: The Westrheim Group, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:51:09 GMT
Keywords: sco uucp tcp/ip
Precedence: bulk


I am having trouble configuring UUCP to use the TCP/IP network as
its "device".  I have two systems, both running SCO UNIX 3.2.4,
which had UUCP running on a modem.  One system was moved to the
location of the other system and connected to it using SCO
TCP/IP.  The system that was moved (SystemB) no longer has a
modem attached to it and must direct all of its UUCP activity
through the other system (SystemA).

I have setup the system without a modem to be
SystemB.SystemA.UUCP, and the one with the modem to be
SystemA.UUCP.  By making a line in the root.dom file that states
"uucp SystemA.UUCP", all mail traffic is getting routed through
SystemA.  However, there are several programs on SystemB that
use the "uucp" program to copy files to SystemA, and this is
where I am having difficulty.

When I issue the command "uucp /etc/motd SystemA!/tmp/" I get
told that SystemA is not in the Systems file.  Reading this file
advises that you can configure a site to use the "TCP" device,
instead of "ACU".  After making this change I am told that this
device is not available.  This leads me to making an entry in the
Devices file for the "TCU" device.  The examples are not clear on
what to put in each field of this entry and the trial & error
approach is getting tedious.

What I would like is to be able to configure both systems so that
the UUCP programs will work between them, using the TCP/IP
network instead of a modem line.  I know this is easy, once you
have figured out how to do it! 8^)

Any suggestions?
-- 
Bill Irwin    -       The Westrheim Group     -    Vancouver, BC, Canada
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
uunet!twg!bill            (604) 431-9600 (voice) |     Your Computer  
bill@twg.bc.ca            (604) 430-4329 (fax)   |    Systems Partner
From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: The UUCP network hasn't a tree structure (for some strange unexplained reason, was Re: Mixed format addresses)
Date: 2 Jan 1993 13:56:35 -0500
Organization: The Programmers' Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI
NNTP-Posting-Host: mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us

In article <1993Jan2.055818.25540@jack.sns.com> steve@jack.sns.com (J. Steven Harrison) writes:
>Come on now Bruce have you ever heard of DNS?

Since when do DNS and UUCP have anything whatsoever to do with each
other?

-- 
Marc Unangst, N8VRH         | "Of course, in order to understand this you
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us   |  have to remember that the nucleus of the atom
                            |  is squishy."
                            |    -W. Scheider, from a Physics lecture
Xref: sparky comp.mail.uucp:2438 comp.mail.misc:4105
From: Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Date: 27 Dec 92 22:19:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzxvDC.CoK.2
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon Univ, Nectar Project

sl@wimsey.bc.ca writes:
   >but some sites cannot, and this is A Good Thing.  Because that way
   >there is an incentive for people to get out of the .UUCP domain so we
   >may not need to support it (for global routing) in five years time.

   But we said that five years ago! (No smiley either.)
   This strategy doesn't seem to be working.

The strategy in question has in fact not been implemented in the first
place.  There is far too much ad hoc support for .uucp out there, with
the result that there has been no real incentive offered.  One cannot
complain of the failure of a strategy which has not been truly tried.

To provide such an incentive, the ad hoc support would have to
disappear completely, in a hurry, and without backward compatibility.
Then we would see whether such an incentive works.
From: schinagl@fstgds06.tu-graz.ac.at (Hermann Schinagl)
Subject: Wanted : UUCP Echo
Organization: Technical University of Graz, Austria
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 12:03:24 GMT

The headline says it all: 

I need a uucp adress which echoes mails sent to it

Thanks in advance Hermann

Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 02:24:24 GMT

djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel) writes:

> Myself,
> I'd love to see all the USA Universities move to .edu.us and the USA
> only companies (ie: not sun.com, hp.com, etc) move to .com.us, but I
> don't see it happening.

It won't.  For one thing, the .org, .com etc. domains, which everyone
assumes are all US organizations, in fact contain a bunch of non-US
organizations that don't want to register under their national domain.

Several of Wang's foreign subsidiaries are under <country>.wang.com; this
is fine, but I'd hate to have to move them to <country>.wang.com.us.

Also, there's no reason to assume that country codes will be at the top of
the tree forever.  The reorganization in the former .su and .yu is showing
the defects of country codes very clearly, and it's only a matter of time
before non-national and non-earthbound organizations get into the act.

> Anyway, my point is that even if appropriate authorities in the US
> decided now that they wanted to phase out .edu and .com, it is quite
> possible that they would still be some use of them in the year 2000.

This is wildly optimistic.  We'll be lucky if the .MIL sites have finally
gotten away from the damned HOSTS.TXT by 2000, and that was decided years
ago.

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: My new domain name -- what do I do with it?
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 02:10:34 GMT

trier@slc6.ins.cwru.edu (Stephen C. Trier) writes:

> Indirect service was forbidden for .US hosts when I got my domain name, and
> may still be for all I know.  It is not forbidden in the other domains,

Where was it claimed that indirect service was forbidden?  I've never seen
this in any .US domain forms, old or new.  I think OSU was even doing it
at one point.

Granted, it's not exactly safe....

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."
From: cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu (Christopher J. Ambler, Phish)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: FSUUCP eating newsgroups?
Date: 30 Dec 92 07:28:33 GMT
Organization: When Fashion Dictates, you're living in a Fashion State!

marcs@crpmks.uucp (Marc Snyder) recently informed us:
>I have had this problem since I began using the newer software in August.
>The older software was having problems on my machine running under
>Windows, so I began using the new software.  It works fine under Windows,
>and works now with the Telebit UUCP spoofing.  However, news seems to be
>broken.  I haven't been able to get an answer as to when this was going
>to be fixed.

It's fixed :-)

Version 1.3r2 is available as beta to mailing list members. I'll let it
out as a release the first week in January pending any serious problems.

Mailing list members: expect a site in 24-48 hours (pending campus
admins making the files available on the FTP site)

Everyone else: send mailing list requests to fsuucp-request@zeus.calpoly.edu,
*NOT* to me personally (they'll probably get lost if you do).

-- 
SO WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PLAY IN    | cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu |   Think Snow!
CURITIBA IN 18 HOURS, BUT OUR   | (805) 756-6634/ISDN      |-------------------
BUS IS BEING HELD HOSTAGE BY    | Because all you of       | Stop that! You'll 
THE LOCAL PROMOTERS. -- INSOC   | Earth are IDIOTS!!       | go blind!
From: acs_brath@rivers.acc.uwrf.edu
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Slip, rmail wanted in wisconsin
Date: 28 Dec 92 13:52:28 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - River Falls

I am looking for a uucp (rmail), slip, or any other type of internet
connection in Wisconsin.  If anyone has sugestions on locations please send me
mail.. Thanks in advance..




-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                Shane Brath  E-Mail: shane.s.brath@uwrf.edu              |
|                Friends don't let friends use Macs and IBM's             |
|          Machintosh: You can get better, but you can't pay more..       |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Radio Shack offers exciting technology-driven products as well.        |
|  Literally everthing we sell has been the latest in technology at some  |
|  point in the last 70 years." - John V. Roach - Tandy Chairman          |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky comp.mail.uucp:2469 comp.mail.misc:4150
From: bo836@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard D. Mccombs)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Top level domains (was Re: Mixed format addresses)
Date: 4 Jan 93 04:46:42 GMT
Reply-To: bo836@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard D. Mccombs)
Organization: The Redheaded League, Lawton, Ok; USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel) says:

>In <930101.040025.7n1.rusnews.w165w@ricksys.lonestar.org> rick@ricksys.lonestar.org (Richard McCombs KB5SNF) writes:
>>trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder) writes:
>
>>> From RFC 1836: The US Domain:
>>[..]
>>>    Their (sic) are no plans of putting all of the organizational domains .EDU
>>>     .GOV .COM etc., under .US.
>
>>Why not leave it that way?
>
>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.
>
>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?

It wouldn't bother me, whatever works.
>
>Philosophicaly, I think the USA would look a lot less arrogant to the
>rest of The Net if its govt depts/agencies were in gov.us or us.gov.
>IMHO, the only govt with a right to be at the top level of .gov would
>be the UN (unless they want to allow all comers).

Well The Net did start here.
>
>Practically, I recognise that there are a *lot* of .gov sites out there
>(in the USA at least), and that changing the domain for all of them is
>about as likely as needing chains on your car in Hades.

The problem is that if it was changed, the existing .gov domains would
still have to work because that's what people are used to.  
Would you propose that existing domains would be listed twice, say 
foo.bar.nasa.gov also be listed as foo.bar.nasa.gov.us?  
I don't that much about DNS but wouldn't that be a waste.
And if it wasn't listed the old way imagine the trouble.
>
>But just because it *won't* happen, doesn't mean it *shouldn't* happen.
>
>PS: Is there any discussion of the USA joining the rest of the world
>    by ditching British Imperial measures and going metric?  At all??

We were supposed to years ago.  Actually I wish we would, I can't
remember how many feet are in a mile.  But people resist changing
because they have been using the Imperial measures as confusing as they
are and don't want to change and don't want to learn how to convert.
Will it ever happen, who knows?  But don't blame all of us Yanks some of
us can see the benifits of the metric system.
(If you want to discuss the metric system further send me Email).


-- 
Internet: bo836@cleveland.freenet.edu, rick@ricksys.lonestar.org
BITNET: bo836%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm
From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Mixed format addresses 
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 02:13:56 GMT
Organization: Crynwr Software

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?

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??

   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.  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.  They have a wildcard MX record for
crynwr.com, so news.crynwr.com and fax.crynwr.com both work just fine.

-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
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Top level domains (was Re: Mixed format addresses)
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:52:29 GMT

> >> I'd love to see all the USA Universities move to .edu.us and the USA
> >> only companies (ie: not sun.com, hp.com, etc) move to .com.us, but I
> >> don't see it happening.

> In <BzsMop.423@wang.com> fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:

> >It won't.  For one thing, the .org, .com etc. domains, which everyone
> >assumes are all US organizations, in fact contain a bunch of non-US
> >organizations that don't want to register under their national domain.

djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel) writes:

> I know this, that's why I said "USA only companies".

I was assuming that "USA only companies" was a null set.  The suggestion
seems to be that companies registering a domain have to pick the top-level:

- .US if they have no foreign office and will never have one;
- .whatever if they have a foreign office or might ever get one.

All companies are going to go with choice 2 so as not to limit their future
choices.  If they get a .US domain and then want to open up a sales office
in Canada, do they have to change their mailing address?

> >Several of Wang's foreign subsidiaries are under <country>.wang.com; this
> >is fine, but I'd hate to have to move them to <country>.wang.com.us.

> Of course not.  Wang is in the same boat as Sun, DEC, IBM, HP, Kodak
> and probably a whole bunch of others I don't know about in Aus.

"A whole bunch of others" is right.  We're talking about every major US
company.  Who's left to reregister in .US?  Grocery stores?

> EDU is a simpler case -- I assume there are no (or very few) Uni's 
> or equivalent which span national boundaries.  But there would need
> to be separate COM. and COM.US. if this reorganisation were to happen.

Then everyone will stay in .COM.

> And GOV should theoretically be used by the UN (or whatever else claims
> to be a World Government) rather than being monopolised by the USA.

Hm.  This is a good point.

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."
From: max@underg.ucf.org (Max Cray)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Unix Smarthost?
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 01:41:31 CST
Organization: Underground Computing Foundation


Ok I got uucp running on a standard unix setup that uses sendmail. If
I specify a bangpath there is no problem, but if I use a standard Internet
address like 'foobar.com' it gets lost. With waffle (my previous experience)
you specify a smarthost, and any unrecognized but valid addresses would be
forwarded to the smarthost, who would then hopefully determine where to
send the mail. How to I tell my unix machine where to send unrecognized
addresses, so that it will forward them?

Or do I need to get a hold of that pathalias program and scrounge up all
those maps files?

Any pointers would be appreciated. I read the newsgroup, but please mail
replies so I do not miss anything. I will summarize if any wants me to.

                                          -= Max =-

---------------------------------------------------------------------
 I try to be my own moderator...
Xref: sparky comp.mail.uucp:2476 comp.mail:215
From: pault@DIALix.oz.au (Paul Templeman)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail
Subject: Mail frontend for UUPC ?
Date: 31 Dec 1992 13:51:44 +0800
Organization: DIALix Services, Perth, Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.dialix.oz.au
Summary: Wanted : mail frontend for uupc including file transfer.
Keywords: mail uupc uupc
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19 #1

Does anyone know of a fontend mailer that runs under DOS (Sorry :-), and
links into UUPC. It's wanted to be used by people who have no unix mail
experience to hook into the internet from a PC via dialup. It should allow
the setting up of mailing lists, plus the attachment of binary documents,
ie. auto-uuencode and decode. I suppose what I'm looking for is a cc:Mail
for DOS that has a hook into UUPC.

It must be robust, for obvious reasons, ie. the users don't have a clue :-)

Can anyone help ????

Please send all replies to paul@sqltech.DIALix.oz.au , as  don't subscribe 
to this mailing list. Thanks ....

Paul...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Templeman            | Sequel Technology   | Phone: +61 9 417 5713 |
| Technical Director        | 16 Bloodwood Circle | Fax:   +61 9 417 7413 |
| paul@sqltech.DIALix.oz.au | South Lake, 6164    |                       |
|                           | Western Australia   |                       |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: The UUCP network hasn't a tree structure (for some strange unexplained reason, was Re: Mixed format addresses)
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:32:15 GMT
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.


 In article <1992Dec28.024259.14707@blilly.UUCP>, bruce@blilly.UUCP (Bruce Lilly) writes:
 >In article <KEQPrAmGBh107h@boombox.apana.org.au> David.Keegel@apana.org.au wrote:
 >>  Personally, I don't want to update a file every time
 >>my feed adds another site, I just want to send everything to my feed.
 >>If they don't recognise it, they do the same (as long as there is a
 >>"tree" structure, and each node knows all the sites "below" it).
 >
 >What makes you think the UUCP network has a tree structure?

Well, we DO have 'leaf' sites... :)

-- 
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
                                                         | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Top level domains (was Re: Mixed format addresses)
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:53:51 GMT

In article <TRSNYDER.92Dec30084303@vf0031.mcs.drexel.edu> trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder) writes:
>In article <6IcPrAtMBh107h@boombox.apana.org.au> djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel) writes:
}
}[...]
}   Of course not.  Wang is in the same boat as Sun, DEC, IBM, HP, Kodak
}   and probably a whole bunch of others I don't know about in Aus.
}
}   EDU is a simpler case -- I assume there are no (or very few) Uni's 
}   or equivalent which span national boundaries.  But there would need
}   to be separate COM. and COM.US. if this reorganisation were to happen.
}
}   Even though the intention was that any educational institution any
}   where in the world could be registered under the EDU domain, in
}   practice it has turned out with few exceptions only those in the
}   United States have registered under EDU, similiary with COM (for
}   commercial). In other countries, everything is registered under the
}   2-letter country code, often with some subdivision.  For example, in

In Canada there are several Universities that have registered under .edu.
For example toronto.edu (home of cnews). Most recently unbc.edu.

Many companies and organizations in Canada also register under .com or .org or
.net.  E.g. wimsey.com, questor.org. and bc.net are all located in and around
Vancouver.

-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.com> ......................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/pub/wimseypd
From: djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:30:38 +1100
Reply-To: David.Keegel@apana.org.au
Organization: Private site, Melbourne, Australia.

In <KENJI.92Dec18132856@daemun.rcac.astem.or.jp> kenji@rcac.astem.or.jp (Kenji Rikitake) writes:
>One thing those who are in the USA should be aware of is, however,
>that those non-country domains are considered as old conventions which
>should be abolished soon - by many non-US Internet administrators.

Where I come from they (com, edu, org, mil...) are treated as historical
oddities which we will continue to live with for a long time.  Myself,
I'd love to see all the USA Universities move to .edu.us and the USA
only companies (ie: not sun.com, hp.com, etc) move to .com.us, but I
don't see it happening.

Apart from the sheer logistical problem of moving however many hosts are
in these domains, it would mean that there would be the confusion of
not knowing whether a particular site has moved into .us at the time you
want to mail them, or not.

We have a bit of experience of this in Australia -- many years ago
(well actually about four) all Australian addresses were *.oz (at least
within Aus, I believe they were translated to *.oz.au by the gateway,
munnari.oz.au).

Then 2-3 years ago, when AARNet (the first national IP network) started
there was a push to change to using *.edu.au, *.com.au, etc.  A number
of Uni's changed back then, and others have been gradually taking the
plunge into these "new" domains.  Of course new companies are generally
suggested to use .com.au, but there aren't that many new Uni's.

The current situation is that by numbers, about 3/4 of the Uni's are
now *.edu.au, but a number of these also have *.oz.au addresses, and
a lot of the major ones (MU, SU, UQ, UWA?) are still only in oz.au.

Anyway, my point is that even if appropriate authorities in the US
decided now that they wanted to phase out .edu and .com, it is quite
possible that they would still be some use of them in the year 2000.

If you're inclined to doubt, answer me this: which major countries in
the world use Imperial measures rather than Metric?  (By major I just
mean say, population > 1 million.)  I can only think of one.

-- 
David Keegel	Home:	<djk@boombox.apana.org.au>  Tel: +61 3 593-1460
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp