HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjo@iao.ford.com (Mike O'Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: UUPC-No userid in From or Return-Path fields
Date: 7 Jan 1993 20:17:00 GMT
Organization: Not an official spokesperson for Ford Motor Company
Reply-To: Mike O'Connor <mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost

In article <1993Jan5.160729.23762@progress.com> tucker@bedford.progress.COM writes:
:I am using UUPC with PCELM as the UA. I do not get any userid in
:either of these fields when received on my Sparc. I have
:tried a zillion(???) combos in the .rc fields to no avail. I do not get
:the userid in the headers when I use MAIL.EXE either!

Do you have a password file?

-- 
 Michael J. O'Connor           |  Internet:  mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com
 Ford Motor Company, OPEO      |  UUCP:      ...!{backbone}!fmsrl7!mjo
 20000 Rotunda, Bldg. 1-3001   |  Phone:     +1 (313) 248-1260
 Dearborn, MI  48121           |  Fax:       +1 (313) 323-6277
From: dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses 
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 10:11:56 EST
Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814

nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:

<Stuff about what I wrote...>

> 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.

You must be confusing me with someone else.  I have never complained
about not being able to change my own DNS entries.

My statements have been mostly concerned with the effectiveness of
email routing today versus what it could be tomorrow.  I'm not interested
in defending either DNS or pathalias.  My comments have had one goal
behind them, i.e., to prompt thought on the future of email routing,
based on what I've seen happening with both pathalias and DNS driven
mail routing today.


> 
> -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


-- 
dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson)
gatech!vdbsan!willard!dawson
emory!uumind!willard!dawson
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: rcarvin@x102a.ess.harris.com (carvin robert 60184)
Subject: Source for UUlite or Alternate
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:41:13 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Organization: Harris ESS, Melbourne, Fla.

[ Article crossposted from comp.sys.mac.misc ]
[ Author was carvin robert 60184 ]
[ Posted on Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:29:44 GMT ]

I have an uuencoded PICT file that was sent to me via e-mail. I would
like to decode this file using my mac and have been told to use UUlite
to do so.  Using the Archie data base, I determined that there is only
one anonymous ftp site, forwiss.uni-passau.de, that has this software.
Unfortunately, its server is down.  Does anyone know of an alternate
anonymous ftp source or an alternate program (freely available).  

--
================================================================================Bob Carvin (rcarvin@x102a.ess.harris.com)|  The usual disclaimer of the non-
GASD Harris Corp. (407) 727-5574         |  responsibility of ones employer    
P.O. Box 94000 Melbourne, FL 32902       |  and cohorts applies.
================================================================================

--
================================================================================Bob Carvin (rcarvin@x102a.ess.harris.com)|  The usual disclaimer of the non-
GASD Harris Corp. (407) 727-5574         |  responsibility of ones employer    
P.O. Box 94000 Melbourne, FL 32902       |  and cohorts applies.
================================================================================
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: garland@ihspa.att.com (45262-Garland)
Subject: Re: Reply addresses from ATTMAIL.COM
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:27:20 GMT

In article <726586809snx@sugs.tware.com> landis@sugs.tware.com (Hale Landis) writes:
>
>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?

Hmm, it seems to work fine for me, even when I originate the mail from
outside AT&T.  Please mail me the exact bounce message you received,
and I'll check into it.  You could also send mail to the ATTMAIL Help
Desk, atthelp@attmail.com.

Chris
--
-- 
Chris Garland, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Christine.M.Garland@att.com
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: sjsobol@wariat.org (Steven J. Sobol)
Subject: Re: MAIL and UUCP
Organization: APK Public Access
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:10:23 GMT

Gerhard den Hollander (holland@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl) wrote:
: We are trying to incstall MAIL via UUCP on a concex (C2)
: but for some stupid reason it doesn't work.
: 
: Can anyone please help.

There are probably some people who can help if you give us an explanation
of the problem.

 
-- 
Steve Sobol   Head Cheerleader, APK Public Access *nix/Internet
(216) 481-9436 <2400 baud>     (216) 481-9425 <v.32bis, TurboPEP>
Telnet: wariat.org   To register: send e-mail to info@wariat.org, or
log in to BBS and download file 'user.new' from file area 2.

Also President of The Tiny Software Co.   E-Mail Address: sjsobol@tiny.com
From: kenh@leps5.phys.psu.edu (Ken Hornstein)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Date: 9 Jan 1993 06:11:15 GMT
Organization: Penn State, Laboratory for Elementary Particle Science

In article <5w43wB5w165w@willard.atl.ga.us> dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson) writes:
>> 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.
>
>It's not that UUCP is doing things differently, it's that inconsistency
>amongst Internet sites (some of whom treat .UUCP as a "valid" domain, by
>routing mail to such sites, and some who do not) that causes me to be
>concerned.

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 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.

>> My philosophy is that where possible the transport layer used between
>> my and my neighbor should be invisible to everyone except ourselves.
>
>A valid opinion.  Not one that I share, however.  Why should such info
>not be a matter of public record, so that time-to-delivery could be properly
>computed?  (Of course, other schemes could be suggested...)

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.

--Ken
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: bruce@blilly.uucp (Bruce Lilly)
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Organization: Bruce Lilly
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 14:12:01 GMT
Reply-To: lilb@sony.compuserve.com (Bruce Lilly)

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.

>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. 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.

>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.

Great. Let's all use pure X.400 addresses for everything. :-) :-) :-) :-)
Different transport methods *do* use different addressing formats. Have
you ever tried to get the U.S. Postal Service to deliver a letter to
"kenh@leps5.phys.psu.edu" (without a name, street address, P.O. Box number,
or ZIP code)?


-- 
	Bruce Lilly		...uupsi!monymsys!sonyd1!blilly!bruce
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:29:47 GMT

In article <5w43wB5w165w@willard.atl.ga.us> dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson) writes:
>djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel) writes:

>Granted, that might make sense.  (One possible exception to that is, if
>it were possible for you to specify the delivery mode [airmail? overland?
>each are usually options for the traditional mail, as per your own example])

>> My philosophy is that where possible the transport layer used between
>> my and my neighbor should be invisible to everyone except ourselves.
>
>A valid opinion.  Not one that I share, however.  Why should such info
>not be a matter of public record, so that time-to-delivery could be properly
>computed?  (Of course, other schemes could be suggested...)

Interestingly enough the physical transport used by Couriers and postal
authorities is no longer being guaranteed. 

For example in Canada both Canada Post and Loomis Couriers have been 
accused of fraud by using trucks to delivery high priority mail/shipments.

Both have responded that they are no longer selling "air" mail/shipment
but a delivery timeframe. And if they can meet that delivery time with
something other than an air shipment they will do so.

This means that if you send a parcel with priority from Vancouver to 
Edmonton (about 800 miles) it will probably go air if it's Monday to
Thursday. But Friday and Saturday they'll probably put it on a truck
to get there for Monday.

As the email networks grow it will become harder to control *how* your
email get's transported. And hopefully as long as it get's there 
quickly and efficently we shouldn't have to care. 

-- 
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: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: multi-hop uucp implies -C?
Date: 10 Jan 93 05:22:36 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <6071@comton.airs.com> ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) writes:
>mp@allegra.att.com (Mark Plotnick) writes:

>>Under SunOS 4.1.1, "uucp x host1!host2!y" generates a command that
>>starts with "uux -C".  Is the "-C" really necessary?  We have a user
>>here who tried to send out 100 copies of a 6MB file via multi-hop uucp,
>>and our disks didn't have anywhere near 600MB of space.  Would it be OK
>>if uucp gave uux the -C option only if uucp was itself given the -C
>>option?

>However, if you mean that the above uucp command somehow requested a
>remote execution of ``uux -C'' on host1, then the -C is definitely
>necessary.  If uux on host1 was invoked without -C, then the file
>would have to exist somewhere for uux to copy it.  But if that were
>the case, who would delete it?

To make it abundantly more obvious: when the uuxqt used to invoke
the "uux" on the remote system completes, it deletes all the data files
associated with the job.  If you didn't give the -C, the file would
not be there to copy to the next machine when uucico gets around
to try sending it.  This is one of the first things people discover
when they try to write uucp-style remote print programs...

[Like the jackass ones stock on 3b1s.  It uux's the request,
then explicitly uucps the file across into public in a separate
job.  Turkeys.  If uuxqt runs on the remote machine before the
uucp completes (ie: you have multiple connects), the print fails because
the file ain't there yet.  3b1 lp is thoroughly busted.]

>>P.S. has there been any work toward implementing a sort of
>>multicasting, in which a single uucp command line can specify that a
>>file should be copied to multiple destinations?  In the above case,
>>virtually all the 100 copies were being sent to the same "host1", and it
>>would be a win to just send the 6MB once and then have host1 execute a
>>uucp command to send to the 100 destinations.

>This would be fairly straightforward.  You could make
>    uucp file --to host1!host3!file1 --to host1!host2!file2
>execute the following on host1
>    uucp -C file --to host3!file1 --to host2!file2
>Of course, the uucp running on host1 would have to recognize the --to
>flag.

There's several approaches that don't need modified uucps.  Ie:
"uuto" (uucp) the file into public on host1, then invoke a lot
of these:
	uux host1!uucp public/file host2!...
(with the appropriate quoting) Then you only have one copy, but it
won't be automatically deleted.

Or, write a shell script on host1 that does the multi-cast, and
invoke that remotely.  Still have the problem of deleting the file
afterwards.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From: dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 19:44:39 EST
Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814

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

> 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.

Granted, that might make sense.  (One possible exception to that is, if
it were possible for you to specify the delivery mode [airmail? overland?
each are usually options for the traditional mail, as per your own example])

> 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.

It's not that UUCP is doing things differently, it's that inconsistency
amongst Internet sites (some of whom treat .UUCP as a "valid" domain, by
routing mail to such sites, and some who do not) that causes me to be
concerned.

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

A valid opinion.  Not one that I share, however.  Why should such info
not be a matter of public record, so that time-to-delivery could be properly
computed?  (Of course, other schemes could be suggested...)

> 
> -- 
> <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.


-- 
dawson@willard.atl.ga.us (Willard Dawson)
gatech!vdbsan!willard!dawson
emory!uumind!willard!dawson
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
From: ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: multi-hop uucp implies -C?
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:48:29 GMT
Organization: Infinity Development, Waltham, MA

mp@allegra.att.com (Mark Plotnick) writes:

>Under SunOS 4.1.1, "uucp x host1!host2!y" generates a command that
>starts with "uux -C".  Is the "-C" really necessary?  We have a user
>here who tried to send out 100 copies of a 6MB file via multi-hop uucp,
>and our disks didn't have anywhere near 600MB of space.  Would it be OK
>if uucp gave uux the -C option only if uucp was itself given the -C
>option?

If you mean that uucp did an exec of "uux -C", then the -C was
certainly not necessary (although on some systems uucp does a -C by
default, so passing -C to uux by default would be correct; I don't
know about SunOS).

However, if you mean that the above uucp command somehow requested a
remote execution of ``uux -C'' on host1, then the -C is definitely
necessary.  If uux on host1 was invoked without -C, then the file
would have to exist somewhere for uux to copy it.  But if that were
the case, who would delete it?

>P.S. has there been any work toward implementing a sort of
>multicasting, in which a single uucp command line can specify that a
>file should be copied to multiple destinations?  In the above case,
>virtually all the 100 copies were being sent to the same "host1", and it
>would be a win to just send the 6MB once and then have host1 execute a
>uucp command to send to the 100 destinations.

This would be fairly straightforward.  You could make
    uucp file --to host1!host3!file1 --to host1!host2!file2
execute the following on host1
    uucp -C file --to host3!file1 --to host2!file2
Of course, the uucp running on host1 would have to recognize the --to
flag.
-- 
Ian Taylor | ian@airs.com | First to identify quote wins free e-mail message:
`` `The world can grow into an ordered place where all are equal before
    the law.  And the law is just.  Honest.  Without graft.'
   `Is that so important if you are starving?' ''
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: holland@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl (Gerhard den Hollander)
Subject: MAIL and UUCP
Organization: Delft University of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:54:25 GMT

We are trying to incstall MAIL via UUCP on a concex (C2)
but for some stupid reason it doesn't work.

Can anyone please help.
From: djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Top level domains (was Re: Mixed format addresses)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 21:04:11 +1100
Reply-To: David.Keegel@apana.org.au
Organization: Private site, Melbourne, Australia.

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.

>Hope this helps.

Indeed it does.
Does the same apply to MIL?  If so, what is INT for?

-- 
<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.
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
From: mp@allegra.att.com (Mark Plotnick)
Subject: multi-hop uucp implies -C?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:23:24 GMT

Under SunOS 4.1.1, "uucp x host1!host2!y" generates a command that
starts with "uux -C".  Is the "-C" really necessary?  We have a user
here who tried to send out 100 copies of a 6MB file via multi-hop uucp,
and our disks didn't have anywhere near 600MB of space.  Would it be OK
if uucp gave uux the -C option only if uucp was itself given the -C
option?

	Mark Plotnick
	mp@allegra.att.com

P.S. has there been any work toward implementing a sort of
multicasting, in which a single uucp command line can specify that a
file should be copied to multiple destinations?  In the above case,
virtually all the 100 copies were being sent to the same "host1", and it
would be a win to just send the 6MB once and then have host1 execute a
uucp command to send to the 100 destinations.
From: rjohnson@emtek.UUCP (Robert Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Cannot get uucp between Sun and IBM RS/6000 to communicate.
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:39:37 GMT
Organization: Emtek Health Care Systems, Inc., Tempe Arizona
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

We have Several sites we need to communicate with.  In our primary
location we have predominantly suns, but a few RS/6000's.  Our
uucp server has always been a Sun.  It is currently running 4.1.1.

We have serveral remote sites coming on line with RS6000's now and
wish to communicate with them as we always have with our Sun sites.

I can get the uucp from a IBM to the IBM working without any problem.
When I try to get the Sun to be the uucp server, the connection hangs.

When I watch the communication, both with the debug option, and a line
analyzer, I see the IBM present the login, the sun responds 
with nuucp<CR> ( the login name is "nuucp" followed by a Carriage Return),
but the IBM never responds with the passwd prompt.  

When I try to observe the same between the two IBM's, the protocol
is the same, (nuucp<CR>) but the receiving machine provides the passwd
prompt and everything goes ok.

Any ideas?



Robert Johnson                         UUCP: uunet!emtek!rjohnson
Emtek Health Care Systems, Inc.        Phone: (602) 902-2775
1501 W. Fountainhead Parkway           Fax:   (602) 902-2616
Suite 190
Tempe, Arizona 85282
Xref: sparky comp.mail.uucp:2527 comp.mail.misc:4272
From: gdonl@sunrise.ssi1.com (Don Lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:27:56 GMT
Organization: Silicon Systems, Nevada City CA

In article <BjQPrA-FBh107h@boombox.apana.org.au> David.Keegel@apana.org.au writes:
>I guessed it was common knowledge among "larger" (whatever that means)
>internet sites.  Or at least the well-behaved ones.  If for no other
>reason than to reduce traffic to the root nameservers (gee, wouldn't
>it be nice if BIND cached negative information like "UUCP. -- unknown
>domain".)

Even if BIND had negative caching, it wouldn't help much in this case.
The problem is that there wouldn't be any queries for just "UUCP".  Your
local name server would forward queries for foo.UUCP and bar.UUCP to
the root servers, which would return a no such domain response.  Your
local server would cache this information for foo.UUCP and bar.UUCP,
but when it received a query for baz.UUCP, it would still forward it
to the root servers.
-- 
Don "Truck" Lewis              Phone: +1 916 478-8284   Silicon Systems
Internet: gdonl@ssi1.com       FAX:   +1 916 478-8290   138 New Mohawk Road
UUCP: {uunet,tektronix!gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com}!ssigv!gdonl  Nevada City, CA  95959