uucp@entire.xerox.com (UUCP Administrator) (12/21/87)
Here is yet another map entry for a new site here in sunny East Rochester, NY.
We have been online now for about 1 month. As noted in the map I am currently
working with xerox, here in webster, for the UUCP map additions. At this point
we are not in the posted uucp maps. So please have pity on a orphane site and
add us to your map database.
#N entire
#S Intel 80386 PC System; Interactive Systems, 386/ix (Unix System V.3)
#O Entire Inc., Engineering Center, East Building.
#C John A. Gallant
#E entire!postmaster
#T +1 716 381 7870
#P 435 W. Commercial Street, East Rochester, New York, 14445
#L 43 07 04 N / 77 29 59 W
#R Running: news version 2.11; Sendmail/smail
#U rocksanne
#W entire!jag (John A. Gallant); Mon Dec 21 10:59:23 EST 1987
#
# I am working with xerox on the domain name, we are UUCP only.
entire .entire.xerox.com
entire= entire.xerox.com
entire rama(DEMAND), rocksanne(DIRECT) iwa(DIRECT) xrx3b(DEMAND)
John A. Gallant UUCP: {..}!rochester!rocksanne!entire!uucp
Defacto UUCP Administrator
Entire Inc./Xerox
I don't mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy.
Samuel Butlerjbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (12/29/87)
In article <3121@entire.xerox.com> uucp@entire.xerox.com (UUCP Administrator) writes: >Here is yet another map entry for a new site here in sunny East Rochester, NY. ... >#N entire >#S Intel 80386 PC System; Interactive Systems, 386/ix (Unix System V.3) ... >entire= entire.xerox.com Sorry, but we can't very well have every PC in the world on the UUCP map. Since you are in the .xerox.com domain it's unnecessary anyway; my site already knows how to mail to machines in the .xerox.com domain and if entire.xerox.com were your official name, I could mail to you without any information being added to the UUCP map. (The mail would go to the .xerox.com gateway and then to you). In any case, with a company the size of Xerox I doubt if you'd get to be entire.xerox.com; at the least you'd be entire.division.xerox.com where "division" is some subdomain inside Xerox. To give you an example of how it works at a much tinier company: I maintain the internal pathalias tables for the .epi.com domain. We can add additional hosts as we like, and no one outside the company knows the details; the UUCP maps say how to get to .epi.com and we take care of the rest. I suggest you consult with some e-mail experts inside your company; your internal mail configuration should be approved by them and it isn't really our concern. -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,sun,decwrl,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck Old internet mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net
billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) (12/30/87)
In article <1777@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >Sorry, but we can't very well have every PC in the world on the UUCP >map. What an incredibly obnoxious statement. The mere fact that someone runs UNIX on a small computer condemns them forever to forego representation in the UUCP map? What's next? Shall we banish the small 68000 boxes? Maybe we can even burn a few witches while we're at it, oh, what fun. -- Bill Wisner / billw@killer.UUCP / ..{cbosgd,codas,ihnp4}!killer!billw Internet types can try billw@OBERON.LCS.MIT.EDU, for now anyway
clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis) (12/30/87)
In article <1777@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >In article <3121@entire.xerox.com> uucp@entire.xerox.com (UUCP Administrator) writes: >>Here is yet another map entry for a new site here in sunny East Rochester, NY. >... >>#N entire >>#S Intel 80386 PC System; Interactive Systems, 386/ix (Unix System V.3) >... >>entire= entire.xerox.com > >Sorry, but we can't very well have every PC in the world on the UUCP >map. [Then on about being in the Xerox domain...] Um, I wouldn't be so bigotted if I were you - a 386 running V.3 isn't exactly a "PC" in the normal sense - in horsepower it's pretty close to a Sun and it could easily have 16 or more users. It doesn't appear to be a "personal computer" either - the "Entire Inc." seems to imply that it's not his personal machine. It is a little confusing tho - his map entry seems to imply he's separate from Xerox, but is trying to get the Xerox domain to know him. Maybe his .xerox.com is a little premature? -- Chris Lewis, Spectrix Microsystems Inc, UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo, lsuc}!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (12/31/87)
In <1777@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: > Sorry, but we can't very well have every PC in the world on the UUCP map. In <2613@killer.UUCP> billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) replies: > What an incredibly obnoxious statement. The mere fact that someone runs > UNIX on a small computer condemns them forever to forego representation > in the UUCP map? I think it's just a matter of practicality. The maps are already pretty big, and getting bigger all the time (a typical day sees 3 or 4 new sites announcing themselves; that's 1000 a year). The Internet underwent this growing pain a while ago, switching from an all-inclusive hosts file to hierarcial name servers. Clearly that is the intent of the uucp mapping project as well. It seems to me that the only practical thing to do for single-user home PC's would be to have some larger site which is in the maps to agree to forward mail for them. Granted, it is not always easy to find someone who will forward mail for you. We used to hand out uucp links pretty freely. Now, I spend some time thinking "do we really want to talk to this site?" before I agree. If the proposed link is for a home PC, I almost always say "No" because I've been seen too many sites badly run by part-time SA's, causing me unending trouble at this end. No, I'm not saying that all home PC's are sloppily run, or even most, but I've been burned so many times I've learned to stay away from the fire. Offering to pay my phone bills is nice, but impractical and non-sequitur; it's not the few 10-cent phone calls that bother me, it's the time spent cleaning up (ever have to wade through literally hundreds of mail messages about malformed uux requests?) In a dense area (such as New York City) it might make sense for a bunch of single user sites to band together and designate one of them as the mail funneler to be shown in the maps as a domain; I could see sending mail to foo@bar.nyc-pc.com and hand off mail to the other sites. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the local Unix groups (such as Unigroup of New York) to operate this service for their members. In fact, I think given the lack of security in UUCP, it would be possible (actually, pretty trivial) for several physically distant PC's to masquerade as a single UUCP site (which could be in the map); each would call the common feed periodically and pick up everthing addressed to the pseudo-site. It would keep what was really meant for it and forward the rest to the other sites. On the other end, the forwarder would simply need to maintain several L.sys lines for the pseudo-sites; each would correspond to a different phone line with a different PC; whichever one answers first would announce itself as the pseudo-site. One could even imagine the SA at the feed site for this pseudo-site not even being aware he was talking to more than one PC (assuming he didn't get suspicious about the varied phone numbers). There might be some subtle problems with simultaneous conversations to different PC's which are part of the same site, but I think the standard built-in UUCP locking mechanism would deal with this. UUCP meets distributed computing! Oh, and before somebody jumps on me, by PC I mean the generic concept of a Personal Computer, be it an IBM-PC or your own personal Vax. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
heiby@falkor.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (12/31/87)
Roy Smith (roy@phri.UUCP) writes: > It seems to me that the only practical thing to do for > single-user home PC's would be to have some larger site which is in the > maps to agree to forward mail for them. > > Oh, and before somebody jumps on me, by PC I mean the generic > concept of a Personal Computer, be it an IBM-PC or your own personal Vax. I agree with Roy. For some time, I've had a 68020-based system at home with 10 serial ports. It is nominally an 8 user system. I am the only user. I use an MS-DOS PC (AT&T 6300) as the console terminal. My site has been in the maps for a long time, but only as a site talked to by my machine at work, mcdchg. My home system would clearly not be considered a PC based on hardware configuration. It is a well-run site, causing no problems for my feed (me). I use this system for actual work-related matters for my job, so it's not really a "personal" system. However, I have not submitted a full map entry for it, as I am the only real user. I believed the information on map entries that said that the mapping project was not interested in having a map entry for every PC out there. Typically, a PC (like my "8-user" home system) will have just one (or maybe two) UUCP connections. Their "upstream" site(s) will have them in their map entry, so they can be found, just as "falkor" can be found, via "mcdchg". The only real reason why a map entry for "falkor" might be useful is so someone could contact me by mail or phone. Well, in that case, a call to my feed site admin (me) would get them the proper information on the falkor admin (me). -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Intel architectures build character."
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (01/01/88)
In article <1777@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>Sorry, but we can't very well have every PC in the world on the UUCP >>map. In article <2613@killer.UUCP> billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) writes: >What an incredibly obnoxious statement. The mere fact that someone runs UNIX >on a small computer condemns them forever to forego representation in the >UUCP map? What's next? Shall we banish the small 68000 boxes? Maybe we can >even burn a few witches while we're at it, oh, what fun. Bill, I'm sorry you took offense. But the UUCP map is already too big for PCs to deal with. The whole purpose of domainism is to reduce the size of the UUCP map, even as the net grows. The person who posted the map entry indicated that he was or soon would be a member of the .xerox.com domain. So there's no reason for the UUCP map to contain information on little computers owned by big organizations. As for little computers owned by individuals: if UUPC becomes wildly popular, we're stll going to run up against a wall at some point where we can't have everybody on the map. Since the domain registration fee was instituted, I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop (that is, a fee for having a site appear in the map). Unfortunately, the fee currently goes to the wrong people, since the major expense generated by sites appearing on the UUCP map is the cost of sending comp.mail.maps around the world. Seems like some of the fees should subsidize uunet and the European backbone; it's hard to see how to distribute revenue to someone else. -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,sun,decwrl,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck Old internet mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net
matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Mr. nEtural) (01/01/88)
In article <365@spectrix.UUCP> clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis) writes:
) Um, I wouldn't be so bigotted if I were you - a 386 running V.3 isn't
) exactly a "PC" in the normal sense - in horsepower it's pretty close
) to a Sun and it could easily have 16 or more users.
Oh, boy! I'll register all the suns here in the uucp map! Won't
that be jolly fun as the U. Chicago entry suddenly expands to 20
times its size?
Mattjc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (01/02/88)
> In fact, I think given the lack of security in UUCP, it would be > possible (actually, pretty trivial) for several physically distant PC's to > masquerade as a single UUCP site (which could be in the map); each would > call the common feed periodically and pick up everthing addressed to the > pseudo-site. It would keep what was really meant for it and forward the > rest to the other sites. This isn't a new idea; it's been done by several organizations that have installations at widely-separated sites. > ... There might be some subtle problems with simultaneous > conversations to different PC's which are part of the same site, but I > think the standard built-in UUCP locking mechanism would deal with this. > UUCP meets distributed computing! The only problem is that uucp really doesn't allow two adjacent sites to have the same name, or for one site to have two neighbors with the same name. However, at least on Sys/V machines, there is a simple solution. These come with at least two names (see /usr/include/sys/utsname.h) that are called the 'sysname' and 'nodename'. The idea was that they were for use on different (local/global?) networks. UUCP uses the nodename. If two machines have different sysnames and the same nodename, they can't talk UUCP, but they can use any mailer or ftp that uses the sysname. You can easily replace /bin/rmail on both systems with a forwarder of your choice that figures out where the recipient really lives. Lately I've been working on some BSD systems; I've yet to find anything comparable there, though I'd like to get some flames about how blind I've been (:-). -- John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)
billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) (01/02/88)
In article <1777@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>>Sorry, but we can't very well have every PC in the world on the UUCP >>>map. In article <2613@killer.UUCP> billw@killer.UUCP (yes, that's me) writes: >>What an incredibly obnoxious statement. The mere fact that someone runs UNIX >>on a small computer condemns them forever to forego representation in the >>UUCP map? In article <1788@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >Bill, I'm sorry you took offense. But the UUCP map is already too >big for PCs to deal with. Again, there's that attitude I railed against. Who says the UUCP map is already too big for PCs? I've known a one-man consulting firm with a PC AT that had nearly 400 megs of disk space. That's more than some particularly small-time VAXen I've used. >As for little computers owned by individuals: if UUPC becomes wildly >popular, we're stll going to run up against a wall at some point >where we can't have everybody on the map. Since the domain >registration fee was instituted, I've been waiting for the other shoe >to drop (that is, a fee for having a site appear in the map). >Unfortunately, the fee currently goes to the wrong people, since >the major expense generated by sites appearing on the UUCP map is >the cost of sending comp.mail.maps around the world. Seems like some >of the fees should subsidize uunet and the European backbone; it's >hard to see how to distribute revenue to someone else. UUPC is the farthest thing from my mind. I am talking about small computers -- "PC"s -- that run REAL (well, sorta) UNIX. At a place like MIT, there are a zillion Sun workstations, any of which can snarf news via NNTP. Why map them? Internet mail works fine in such cases. A small company that I won't name is only reachable via UUCP but also has a zillion networked Suns. Don't map them, add two or three lines to your map entry using the pathalias LAN notation. Now, the flip side: there are zillions of small organizations out there that have one single PC running UNIX which serves as their sole link to the outside world. Map them! Map them! I certainly prefer sending mail to user@obscure-site.UUCP than toiling for an hour trying to come up with a path to obscure-site-neighbor. Entire's case is.. strange. My impression is that Entire is a seperate company that plans to harbor itself under the xerox.com domain for mail benefits. If that is the case, I can see a seperate map entry for a seperate entity. If, on the other hand, it is a subsidiary, then let it be handled by the xerox.com gateway. -- Bill Wisner / {cbosgd,codas,ihnp4}!killer!billw / billw@oberon.LCS.MIT.EDU If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door.
billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) (01/02/88)
Okay, so we've got a semantic dispute here. Just so we all know what we're
talking about, why not agree on some terms here? For lack of a better word,
PC can be a generic word for a small computer, as typified by the IBM PC.
Workstation will refer to a machine that is, regardless of size or hardware
configuration, used by a single person. By these definitions, a PC can
certainly be a Workstation. Grok?
--
Bill Wisner / {cbosgd,codas,ihnp4}!killer!billw / billw@oberon.LCS.MIT.EDU
If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door.clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis) (01/02/88)
In article <14187@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Mr. nEtural) writes: |In article <365@spectrix.UUCP> clewis@spectrix.UUCP (Chris R. Lewis) writes: | |) Um, I wouldn't be so bigotted if I were you - a 386 running V.3 isn't |) exactly a "PC" in the normal sense - in horsepower it's pretty close |) to a Sun and it could easily have 16 or more users. | |Oh, boy! I'll register all the suns here in the uucp map! Won't |that be jolly fun as the U. Chicago entry suddenly expands to 20 |times its size? | Matt Um, sorry, maybe I left something out - if "entire" was part of the xerox.com domain, then the original poster was correct in suggesting that "entire" shouldn't be registered. No quibble with that. I was only objecting to the automatic assumption that the machine was "beneath consideration" because the machine contained the letters "PC". (He probably didn't mean "Personal Computer", but "386 in a box that *looks* like a PC." - We had trouble marketting the 386 in that guise at shows because everybody thought the thing was "just another goddamn AT clone..." - a 386 running ISC V.3 is nowhere near being that... Damn fine product...)). (Besides, it's not at all clear from the original posting that entire is yet part of the xerox domain...) -- Chris Lewis, Spectrix Microsystems Inc, UUCP: {uunet!mnetor, utcsri!utzoo, lsuc}!spectrix!clewis Phone: (416)-474-1955
mechjgh@tness1.UUCP (Greg Hackney 214+464-2771) (01/03/88)
In article <3121@entire.xerox.com> uucp@entire.xerox.com (UUCP Administrator) writes: >Here is yet another map entry for a new site here in sunny East Rochester >please have pity on a orphane site and add us to your map database. >#N entire >#S Intel 80386 Jeez, I wonder if the poster at "entire" knew what they were getting into when they politely submitted a map entry? I'd like to say, "Welcome to the world, entire, glad to have you aboard!". I'll be glad to add you to my "paths" file! If anyone else doesn't have the room, then don't add "entire". It's simple enough. I feel confident that the existing routing scheme will eventually be further evolved. -- Greg Hackney S.W. Bell Telephone Co. mechjgh@tness1.UUCP {ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1!mechjgh
sal@entire.xerox.com (Steve A. Lipetz) (01/05/88)
In article <1777@epimass.EPI.COM>, jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: > Sorry, but we can't very well have every PC in the world on the UUCP > map. Another response to this article indicated that we at Entire were an "unusual" situation. How very insightful. Perhaps the .xerox.com was premature (we're having no end of difficulties getting added to the domain). At the moment, we are not part of XEROX.COM and our news feed (roxanne) has only just stabilized. Node entire is part of multi-node LAN and the people adminstering it aren't exactly novices (we've a total of ten years usenet experience between us). I won't take umbrage at the PC slight. I'm used to bigger machines too. But no way does it disqualify us as legitimate members of the community. Entire (the company) is a Xerox subsidiary with a slight twist - we're effectively independent (and apparently are treated as such, judging by our attempts to join the domain). Meanwhile, entire (the PC) serves over fifty people and thirty nodes. It would be nice if we could get some mail now and then and that's all that we were trying to accomplish. When I was back at Harris(".COM"), predomain, the Net Police chided us for not posting a map. This one was premature, I admit. We had no business indicating we were part of a domain prior to actually joining it. On the other hand, we want to get listed. We're real, we read news, and we believe in UUCP. Now, how 'bout some constructive, non-inflammatory comments? ____________________________________________________________________________ Steve Lipetz Entire Inc. UUCP: <you figure it out>!entire!sal 435 E. Commercial Street East Rochester, N.Y. 14445 _____________________________________________________________________________
uucp@entire.xerox.com (UUCP Administrator) (01/05/88)
In article <2637@killer.UUCP>, billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) writes: > In article <1777@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: > >>>Sorry, but we can't very well have every PC in the world on the UUCP > >>>map. > In article <2613@killer.UUCP> billw@killer.UUCP (yes, that's me) writes: > >>What an incredibly obnoxious statement. The mere fact that someone runs UNIX > >>on a small computer condemns them forever to forego representation in the > >>UUCP map? Thank you Bill, I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps I made a "oops" by including the letters "PC". In agreement with <365@spectrix.UUCP> Chris R. Lewis, this system is not a personal computer. The only "PC" part is the outer box and disk controller, the AT card form factor is used, 8 Meg of 32 bit RAM, 3 2400 baud modems, Micom INTERLAN ethernet card, two 9600 baud 8 port serial cards, and 200 Meg of disk storage. Is this you average mom and pop PC AT ? :-) Oh yes, I plan on going to an ARLL disk controller and 400 Meg of disk storage. > > In article <1788@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: > >Bill, I'm sorry you took offense. But the UUCP map is already too > >big for PCs to deal with. > ... > ....................................Now, the flip side: there are zillions > of small organizations out there that have one single PC running UNIX which > serves as their sole link to the outside world. Map them! Map them! > I certainly prefer sending mail to user@obscure-site.UUCP than toiling > for an hour trying to come up with a path to obscure-site-neighbor. > Our site can be considered a small organization, we have about 70 people and about 70 PC AT's running MS DOS and 5 Unix stations, all are using the Intel 80386 mother board, and linked via SMTP. The node "entire" is our only! UUCP link to the outside world. > > Entire's case is.. strange. My impression is that Entire is a seperate > company that plans to harbor itself under the xerox.com domain for mail > benefits. If that is the case, I can see a seperate map entry for a > seperate entity. If, on the other hand, it is a subsidiary, then let it > be handled by the xerox.com gateway. > We are effectivly a seperate company, and yes I was hoping to "harbor" ourselves under the xerox.com domain for mail. At some point the UUCP map entry for Xerox in Webster (rocksanne), which is a little old "01/23/85", will be updated to contian our link with them. At this point, and the main problem that I am having is there is not a map for xerox.com in the UUCP domain. It exists for DARPA and a couple of internets for xerox. I am sure that the DARPA network does not need to know about us. So that leaves me with two options. First, work with the administrator of xerox.com, whomever he is, the SA of rocksanne is helping me with this angle, and "map" us in the UUCP overlay of the DARPA map for Xerox. And the second is to purchase a domain under com.UUCP, and call us entire.com, I am also looking into this possiblity. Either way the map information that I posted will still probably go into the UUCP maps. I posted the entry to news.newsites to simply allow SA's who want to keep the map entries up to date, that is if they enjoy adding in "about 1000" sites a year :-), and to say to the world "Hello out there". When I was trying to set up an "sc.harris.com" map entry, the map people recomended that I post to newsites and have the administrator of ".harris.com" add us to their map entry. Well following that advice for entire, I have posted the map and I am working on the approval, as I tried to state in the posting. I am currently handling mail and news for a down stream site and I expect that when rocksvax, another local hub, officially goes away I may be picking up a few more. I am trying to setup a valid UUCP site, not a fly by night 'puter sitting out there. I apologize to those on the net who were offended, and for the excess traffic on the net. Once I have this mapping grief handled, anyone from xerox.com or the UUCP mapping people out there????, I will be as happy as a pig in sh*t. To quote a phrase: "Thank you for your support.". -- John A. Gallant UUCP: {..}!rochester!rocksanne!entire!uucp Defacto UUCP Administrator Entire Inc./Xerox I don't mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy. Samuel Butler
jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (01/06/88)
In article <1788@epimass.EPI.COM>, jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: > As for little computers owned by individuals: if UUPC becomes wildly > popular, we're stll going to run up against a wall at some point > where we can't have everybody on the map. Since the domain > registration fee was instituted, I've been waiting for the other shoe > to drop (that is, a fee for having a site appear in the map). That's exxactly why I haven't - and won't - register for a domain. I can't see a reason why I should spend money to be able to have someone send me mail at 'jay@splut.confmsys.com' (or whatever). The domain system doesn't accommodate individual systems worth a flip. If there were no fee for registering domains, then I would have no heartburn about registering a 'houston.pc' domain and acting as the domain gateway. We will probably wind up with a domain system on the order of '.city-pc.state', but it'll take a lot of heartache. The alternative is to tell the PC owners that they can't hook up to the net and exxpect to get mail. Anyone trying to tell me that (except my feed :-) will get told to hang it in their ear. Note that uupc isn't the only way to get on the net - more and more PCs can run real Unix... -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC (@WB5BBW)...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD CI$: 71036,1603 uucp: {uunet!nuchat,academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1}!splut!jay Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else.