[news.config] deleted UUCP sites

dpz@convex.com (David Paul Zimmerman) (12/22/89)

56 UUCP sites have not updated their UUCP maps in my regions since at least
1987, and have not responded to a number of months of requests for updating.
They are thus considered dead, deceased, no more, no longer alive, defunct,
demised, departed, extinct, gone, lifeless, perished, pushing up daisies,
and/or asleep, benumbed, insensible, insensitive, numb, numbed, and unfeeling.
Their maps have been purged, and all their links are being deleted:

acich aeneid ajg atw286 blnt1 callisto calyx cas785 catalyst dukecdu
dukee ece-csc ecu ecu2 excalibur extel farside ge-mc3i golux hvrunix ilmss
ilunix invest iucs liberty luccpud masschgo mcs3b2 mi-cec ncvet nearside
netzer ohare paideia pcpond phila potc prairie presby pxxops pyrchi que
riccb sam stox totc uab-cs uahcs1 uextrjs undpdp uniq vanvleck vuse wgi70 will
wlbngr

Have a nice day!

David Paul Zimmerman                                             dpz@convex.com
CONVEX Computer Corp                                                 convex!dpz

heiby@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron Heiby) (01/03/90)

When I received similar email, I sent the following message.  Am I way
off base here?  Thanks.
-----
Excuse me, but just because a site does not choose to continue to maintain
a map entry is no reason to delete it from *my* map entry.  My site still
talks with ilmss.  I still forward news and mail to and from them.  Removing
them from the maps is not the right thing to do.  Delete *their* entry, sure!
But, don't pull them out of everyone else's.  You don't have a map entry
for "falkor", do you?  Yet, it's a real machine that I talk with almost
every day.  Falkor just chooses not to have a map entry.  I keep my map
entry pretty current.  If you think a change (other than a simple typo)
needs to be made, you should consult me first.  If I've committed a typo,
I'd like to at least be informed.  Thanks.  Ron.
-----
-- 
Ron Heiby, heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com	Moderator: comp.newprod
"It is the province of knowledge to speak & the privilege of wisdom to listen"

warren@samsung.COM (Warren Lavallee) (01/03/90)

heiby@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron Heiby) writes:
>When I received similar email, I sent the following message.  Am I way
>off base here?  Thanks.
>-----
[Ron said it was fine to delete the person's UUCP map if they refuse to
update it, but doesn't feel it is right to remove that site from his
map entry.]

I have to disagree.  I don't think that people should be allowed to
have links in their maps to sites without map entries.  I picture the
UUCP maps as a graph.  Each edge is a link, and each vertex is a node.
Each edge has a cost associated with it.  The uupath/smail/pathsend
find the least cost path from your node to anyone elses.

You can not have an edge to a non-existent node.  Also, I shouldn't be
able to find a path to a non-existent node.  I seem to be able to find
a path to 'falkor' though? 

I think the UUCP map coordinators should require that the node exists,
before allowing an edge in a map entry.  Also, every so often they
should do consistency checks on all of their maps and take corrective
measures if they do not pass.

I think UUCP map coordinator's should have the power to enforce these
rules.  Someone apparently has to.

						-- Warren
-- 
Warren J. Lavallee, Samsung Software America.     |UUCP: ..!uunet!samsung!warren
(C)1990 Warren J. Lavallee.  All rights reserved. |Internet:  warren@samsung.com
"Punishment becomes ineffective after a certain point-- Men become insensitive."
                                  -- Eneg, "Patterns of Force," stardate 2534.7.

fitz@wang.UUCP (Tom Fitzgerald) (01/04/90)

warren@samsung.COM (Warren Lavallee) writes:
> I think the UUCP map coordinators should require that the node exists,
> before allowing an edge in a map entry.  Also, every so often they
> should do consistency checks on all of their maps and take corrective
> measures if they do not pass.

I have to agree with this (which is a little hypocritical because there
is a machine here at Wang that violates this, but what the heck).  When
people publish connections to unmapped machines, it really raises the
chance of getting 2 machines with the same name in different places
(which has already happened with 'castle' and with 'alice' I believe).
This leads down the path of confused aggressive-rerouters, which can
only end in chaos and madness.

That doesn't mean the map coordinators should do a surprise-rewrite on
map entries, though.  Maybe when a site is going to get expired, its
neighbors should get notified before the map entry gets trashed?

---
Tom Fitzgerald   fitz@wang.com          It's a mistake to believe that
Wang Labs        ...!uunet!wang!fitz    the die is cast.  In reality, it
Lowell MA, USA   1-508-967-5278         is injection-molded.

bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (01/07/90)

In article <777@wang.UUCP> fitz@wang.UUCP (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:
>warren@samsung.COM (Warren Lavallee) writes:
>> I think the UUCP map coordinators should require that the node exists,
>> before allowing an edge in a map entry.  Also, every so often they
>> should do consistency checks on all of their maps and take corrective
>> measures if they do not pass.
>
>I have to agree with this (which is a little hypocritical because there
>is a machine here at Wang that violates this, but what the heck).  When
>people publish connections to unmapped machines, it really raises the
>chance of getting 2 machines with the same name in different places

It also happened here. We filed a map for the name 'diana'. Guess what?
When our mail started disappearing, I checked and found that another
machine, unregistered, had been mentioned under that name in one of the
maps (still is, actually).

The response I got to my inquiry was, in effect, that the best thing for
us to do was change our name and refile a new map. When I asked why the
other site shouldn't be challenged to either file for the name or get
itself taken off the maps, I was told (authoritatively) that there was
concern about doing anything that might tend to reduce the number of
participating sites on the net.

Right. :-| We filed another map and dropped the issue. Jeesh.

The fix is simple and obvious: no map, no access. Period. Maps must be
updated formally at least once a year, and at any time major information
has changed. No mapped site will allow a new connection onto the net
until the administrator at the existing site assures that a map has been
filed for the new site, and that the new site agrees to conform to these
simple maintenance standards thereafter.

Hells bells, people, if your time has *any* value, why continue to waste
it be preserving a non-policy having zero redeeming social value? 
 
                                 Bud
________________________________________________________________________
UUCP: ...{tektronix|sun}!nosun!whizz!bbh       (Just another pilgrim :-)
MOTD: "Tuva or Bust!" - Richard Fehnman