hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey) (03/10/85)
If a site is translating: a!b!c%d.e@f.g to a!b!f.g!c@d.e they are mangling the *route* (it isn't just an *address*). In any event, the Internet gateway should bang-format all mail coming off the Internet which is being routed through uucp-land. This shouldn't be that hard to do; all our mail from the Internet manages to be properly formatted in the proposed class 3 format. I don't know if this formatting is being done by the gateway, or by the site which relays mail to us from the gateway. If downstream sites can't handle the class 3 syntax, the gateway should prepend its name to the path list. For example, if Berkeley passes mail from user@site.arpa to "neighbor", one of two formats should be used when passing the mail to "neighbor": From user remote from site.arpa if "neighbor" is smart, or From site.arpa!user remote from ucbvax otherwise. In any event, the From: line should *not* mention ucbvax. One way to handle this is to separate your UUCP neighbors into two lists. One list contains "smart" neighbors, the other list for sites which can't understand the site.arpa!user syntax. The decision to prepend your site name can then be made based on which list contains the neighbor. While I'm spouting, please remember that it is *wrong* to blindly tack your sitename on the front of the Sender list in sendmail.cf. Your sitename should only be added to *unqualified* names. Please don't forget to qualify names in both the Sender and Recipient fields, in *all* mailers. Also, it is better to avoid @ addresses in favor of ! *within the UUCP arena*. This is true because replys to @ addresses produce ambiguous routes (from "dumb" mailers). To answer jer@peora, your site in Florida would be in a different domain from your home office (in New Jersey) and your main mail-delivery site in Santa Clara. Sales offices would also reside in different geographic domains. This in no way impinges on how you choose to route mail from within PE. It does, however, imply that mail "outside" would not tend to travel to the nearest PE site, but through other sites. If there were a PE subdomain, however, it would tend to give PE the responsibility for maintaining its map info, as well as tend to make PE sites bear the costs for mail to (and, perhaps from) PE sites. >Does the geographic subdomain in any way indicate routing, or is it simply >for naming convenience? Personally speaking, I believe the geographic domain scheme is *less* convenient than giving (commercial) sites their own subdomain. -- Hokey ..ihnp4!plus5!hokey 314-725-9492
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (03/10/85)
In article <635@plus5.UUCP> hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey) writes: >To answer jer@peora, your site in Florida would be in a different domain >from your home office (in New Jersey) and your main mail-delivery site in >Santa Clara. Sales offices would also reside in different geographic >domains. This in no way impinges on how you choose to route mail from >within PE. It does, however, imply that mail "outside" would not tend >to travel to the nearest PE site, but through other sites. If there were >a PE subdomain, however, it would tend to give PE the responsibility for >maintaining its map info, as well as tend to make PE sites bear the costs >for mail to (and, perhaps from) PE sites. Not necessarily true. While the current plan is to divide UUCP into subdomains that are mostly geographically based, there are two other proposals being considered. One would abolish the .UUCP domain and instead have UUCP sites join the EDU, COR, PUB, and GOV domains. The other would keep the UUCP domain but subdivide according to the same rules that the COR et all domains subdivide, possibly by technical specialty. There are no plans to allow every startup company to have their own 2nd level domain, because that would create an unmanageably large number of 2nd level domains. Mark Horton