From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:34:29 GMT

BF> == fenner@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes:
JS> == John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU>

 BF> If you want to look like part of the Internet, then get a domain name.
 BF> If you don't want to play by the (easy and free) rules, then don't
 BF> complain that the game's no fun.

 JS> What easy and free rule says that UUCP sites have to look like part of
 JS> the Internet?

None.  But if they *do* want to look like part of the Internet, they should
do so, instead of whining about how Internet sites "must" support pathalias
and the .UUCP hack.

 BF> Not usually a problem with the DNS; since the DNS is a distributed
 BF> database, you can be easily in charge of your little section, as
 BF> opposed to having to mail your database updates to central site X.)

 JS> I can be in charge of my "little section" of the DNS? Really? From a
 JS> UUCP site? Just what protocol do YOU know of that will allow a UUCP
 JS> site to change the DNS records for its MX site? 

Email, or telephone.  Or even having an account on your DNS server's
machine so you can make the updates yourself.  Who do you think will be
more responsive, your (single) DNS site, or the map coordinators *and*
everyone everywhere who uses the maps?

 BF> With the UUCP maps, it's easy for automated unpacking systems to
 BF> break, sysadmin doesn't notice, *poof*, you're using old data.

 JS> With the DNS, it is easy to poke incorrect data into the database and
 JS> *poof* EVERYONE is using bogus data. 

And pretty soon you notice that EVERYONE is failing to get you mail, so
someone called your Zone Contact and told them to fix the zone.  If only
30% of the UUCP map people can't get you mail, you may never notice.

 BF> You mean the DNS.  Why not?  That was the original design goal.

 JS> For someone who is adamant that nothing in the UUCP maps could possibly
 JS> apply to Internet sites, why this sudden compulsion that MX records
 JS> must apply to UUCP sites?

Who said MX records "must" apply to UUCP sites?  They can sit out there in
the maps, and maybe I can get mail to them.  They can get in the DNS and
improve their chances.  It's up to them.

 BF> Using the DNS, I have no need to store any information about anyone on
 BF> my computer; I can just look it up.

 JS> And just, pray tell, if you keep no information about anyone in your
 JS> computer, who do you talk to to look it up?

The root name servers are not "about anyone".

 BF> Using the UUCP maps, I have to keep 6.7 megs of map files, and a 1.6
 BF> meg (33k line) paths file.  Which seems like the more desirable
 BF> system?

 JS> Or you keep a <30 character name of a site that will gateway traffic.
 JS> That sounds most desirable.

And *they* keep the maps and path files.  At least until *they* get tired
of doing it, and find another "smarthost".  Who gets sick of routing, and...

Every site that *does routing* with the UUCP maps has to keep them around.
With the DNS, sites can do routing without keeping the entire DNS on their
local disk (or even local net).

 BF> It makes no sense for an Internet-only site to run pathalias; the maps
 BF> are of no use for them.  Therefore, the site must find a way from the
 BF> Internet to UUCP.  The easiest way for it to do that is an MX record.

 JS> To do that reliably requires one MX record for every UUCP site.

It does?  You've never heard of wildcard MX records, I see.

 JS> Passing mail to a gateway requires knowing one address.

Until that gateway changes, goes away, gets out of sync with the maps...

 JS> The latter sure seems to be much simpler than trying to get every UUCP
 JS> in the world to register in a voluntary database.

The UUCP maps are not a "voluntary database"?

 JS> It is, however, less simple that expecting them to.

I don't expect every UUCP site in the world to be in the DNS.  I do expect
those that want to be more reachable from Internet sites to do so.
--
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>