aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) (06/30/88)
I have a general understanding of domains in the internet world, but can someone explain them in the uucp world, both "real" ones like (say) .stpstn, and the "fake" one .UUCP? I'm sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but I've spent most of my time up until now in an arpa/bitnet environment, and I want to keep my site up-to-date on what's happening. I hope to install elm and smail as soon as Doug Dejulio gets off his butt and sends my tape back. -- @disclaimer(Any concepts or opinions above are entirely mine, not those of my employer, my GIGI, or my 11/34) beak is beak is not Anthony A. Datri,SysAdmin,StepstoneCorporation,stpstn!aad
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (06/30/88)
In article <1830@stpstn.UUCP> aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) writes: > >I have a general understanding of domains in the internet world, but can >someone explain them in the uucp world, both "real" ones like (say) .stpstn, >and the "fake" one .UUCP? Neither .stpstn nor .UUCP is a "real" domain. Neither is ".ARPA". Thanks to the efforts of the UUCP Project and NIC, UUCP-only sites can obtain a registered domain, as can BITNET and CSNET sites. Our domain, .EPI.COM, is one such. To have a registered domain you must have an Internet forwarder, a site on the Internet that knows how to mail at least to your gateway machine and has agreed to handling the traffic. Domain mailers, when given an address, first try to locate the host. If they don't know how to get the mail there, they attempt to locate the domain. Domain servers have "MX records" to tell how to reach a given domain. Provided that the host is on the UUCP map, Internet folks can mail to site.UUCP by mailing to site.UUCP%uunet.uu.net . This will fail if the site is not on the map. -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,pyramid,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck jbuck@epimass.epi.com Old Arpa mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net If you leave your fate in the hands of the gods, don't be surprised if they have a few grins at your expense. - Tom Robbins
abrams@bnlux0.bnl.gov (Karl L. Abrams) (07/06/88)
In article <2254@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: > : > : >Provided that the host is on the UUCP map, Internet folks can mail >to site.UUCP by mailing to site.UUCP%uunet.uu.net . This will fail >if the site is not on the map. >-- My site is on INTERNET and has a UUCP connection also. Given that we can reach UUCP sites via INTERNET, is it useful for a site like mine to bother with maintaining UUCP maps and pathalias? -- INTERNET: abrams@bnlux0.bnl.gov BITNET: abrams@bnlux0.BITNET UUCP: ...philabs!sbcs!bnlux0!abrams
vixie@palo-alto.DEC.COM (Paul Vixie) (07/09/88)
In article <568@bnlux0.bnl.gov> abrams@bnlux0.UUCP (Karl L. Abrams) writes: # In article <2254@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: # > : # > : # >Provided that the host is on the UUCP map, Internet folks can mail # >to site.UUCP by mailing to site.UUCP%uunet.uu.net . This will fail # >if the site is not on the map. Note that site.uu.net is equivilent to site.uucp%uunet.uu.net, since uunet's mailer will treat them more-or-less identically. It's not just for customers of uunet, though you'd need to be a customer of uunet to actually _register_ a host.uu.net name in the uucp map. # My site is on INTERNET and has a UUCP connection also. Given that # we can reach UUCP sites via INTERNET, is it useful for a site like mine to # bother with maintaining UUCP maps and pathalias? Yes, it's useful. If you depend on Internet alone, you are only going to be able to reach people who've registered their UUCP hosts with the NIC (either in .US or through the UUCP project or by approaching the NIC directly). And when you send those people mail, it'll go via Internet SMTP to the UUCP site's MX, then from there over UUCP to get to the site itself. This can be slow, depending on how well the Internet is working that hour, and on how fast (and how direct) the link is between the MX and the UUCP host. If you have a direct (or indirect but low-latency) link toward the UUCP host that was pure UUCP, it _could_ be faster in some situations. Telebit modems make this more and more common. Also, if the UUCP host you are trying to reach is not registered with the NIC, they won't have an MX record in any case. To reach these (if you want to), you need to either: know a full route from you to them and give it in the user agent (or alias it in the user agent); pass everything you don't understand to a smarter host (like uunet); or run pathalias yourself. I prefer to run pathalias myself, since I can then decide immediately whether a message is deliverable or not. If you boot every unknown up to a smarter host, it takes longer for the originating user to find out that he misspelled (sp?) a host name. It also causes needless net activity. Note that only the main mail hub of your domain needs to run pathalias; it would become the "smart host" for the rest of your domain. This does not cause the above problems because the mail hub is usually reachable on a local ethernet. -- Paul Vixie Digital Equipment Corporation Work: vixie@dec.com Play: paul@vixie.UUCP Western Research Laboratory uunet!decwrl!vixie uunet!vixie!paul Palo Alto, California, USA +1 415 853 6600 +1 415 864 7013
john@jetson.UUCP (John Owens) (07/13/88)
In article <3354@palo-alto.DEC.COM>, vixie@palo-alto.DEC.COM (Paul Vixie) writes: > Note that site.uu.net is equivilent to site.uucp%uunet.uu.net, since uunet's > mailer will treat them more-or-less identically. It's not just for customers > of uunet, though you'd need to be a customer of uunet to actually _register_ > a host.uu.net name in the uucp map. NOTE: I believe that Rick has said that if people start using uunet as a general Internet->UUCP gateway (like they used seismo) he will disable auto-routing, meaning that only uunet customers will be able to use either of the two syntaxes. There are no sites (that I know of) that have volunteered to be general Internet->UUCP gateways. Specific Internet sites have agreed to forward for specific UUCP sites; specifically, those that are forwarders for UUCP Zone domains. So the answer to > # My site is on INTERNET and has a UUCP connection also. Given that > # we can reach UUCP sites via INTERNET, is it useful for a site like mine to > # bother with maintaining UUCP maps and pathalias? is: Yes, definitely! Besides letting you reach UUCP sites more directly, you can also use the data to route via UUCP to zones that have MX, but for which UUCP is better/faster. Now, a question for Paul or anyone who knows: > able to reach people who've registered their UUCP hosts with the NIC (either > in .US or through the UUCP project or by approaching the NIC directly). And When did .US become active, what is it being used for, and how does one sign up?! I haven't heard anything since 6 months ago, when it was totally empty. Thanks! -- John Owens SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership john@jetson.UUCP (old uucp) uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 (internet) john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net
lear@net.bio.net (Eliot Lear) (07/14/88)
> From: john@jetson.UUCP (John Owens) > > When did .US become active, what is it being used for, and how does > one sign up?! I haven't heard anything since 6 months ago, when it was > totally empty. Geoff Goodfellow can tell you how to get into the .US domain. He was the first person to register a machine in there. His email address is geoff@FERNWOOD.MPK.CA.US. -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
") (07/14/88)
In article <71@jetson.UUCP> john@jetson.UUCP (John Owens) writes:
) When did .US become active, what is it being used for, and how does
) one sign up?!
I can't tell you just when it became active, but it's used just like
the "UUCP Project's" .com and .org domains, except that you don't get
gouged for money. If there isn't already a subdomain of .us
established in your area then you can't just "sign up". You might
contact Anne Westine <westine@venera.isi.edu> to see if there is one
or to set about establishing one. It's really very little trouble if
you have a mail guru at each end of the uucp<-->internet link.
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu
forwarder for chi.il.us----^peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (07/18/88)
In article <71@jetson.UUCP>, john@jetson.UUCP (John Owens) writes: > NOTE: I believe that Rick has said that if people start using uunet as > a general Internet->UUCP gateway he will disable auto-routing... This is odd, since any traffic is more income for them. What's the logic behind this? -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation. "Have you hugged U your wolf today?" (uunet,tness1)!sugar!ficc!peter.
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (07/20/88)
The logic is rather straightforward. There is a limit to how much third party traffic uunet's paying customers are willing to pass through. Most of them will tolerate a small amount, but none of them are willing to pay for everyone elses mail traffic. In addition, arpanet and non-northamerican sites dont pay at all, so there's not "income" from them. Most canadian sites only pay a flat monthly membership fee and no usage fee. Theres no income from them either - Just extra load.
lyndon@ncc.Nexus.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) (07/21/88)
In article <1111@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <71@jetson.UUCP>, john@jetson.UUCP (John Owens) writes: >> NOTE: I believe that Rick has said that if people start using uunet as >> a general Internet->UUCP gateway he will disable auto-routing... > >This is odd, since any traffic is more income for them. What's the >logic behind this? Actually, it's resulting in *less* income for them. When we first signed up for uunet, we brought in nearly all the comp groups, and gatewayed about 75% of our mail through them as well. Now that uunet has become the great dumping ground that seismo used to be, at least 50% of my calls to them fail, due to the excessive load on that machine. As a result, we no longer take any newsgroups (well, a couple) from uunet, and the only mail going through them is for Europe or very closely connected sites. This is also a real pain in the ass when you look at our phone bill It costs me $4.00 every time their modem answers (3 minute minimum charge per call). That's four dollars for every LOGIN FAILED, etc., of which we are getting to damn many. I would be quite happy if the router was shut off for non-customers (can you say mmdf?). -- VE6BBM {alberta,pyramid,uunet}!ncc!lyndon lyndon@Nexus.CA
lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair) (07/21/88)
In article <10348@ncc.Nexus.CA> lyndon@ncc.nexus.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: [[ talking about problems connecting to uunet]] |This is also a real pain in the ass when you look at our phone bill |It costs me $4.00 every time their modem answers (3 minute minimum |charge per call). That's four dollars for every LOGIN FAILED, etc., |of which we are getting to damn many. How does uunet determine its billing? I can't believe that there could be a connect charge without a login. How would they know who placed the call? I could believe they might charge for FAILED(startup), although they shouldn't.
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (07/21/88)
uunet charging begins when the two uucico processes have synced up (I.e. when the OK (startup) message appears in the log file)
rob@elvis.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) (07/22/88)
In article <838@vsi1.UUCP> lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair) writes: |In article <10348@ncc.Nexus.CA> lyndon@ncc.nexus.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: |[[ talking about problems connecting to uunet]] ||This is also a real pain in the ass when you look at our phone bill ||It costs me $4.00 every time their modem answers (3 minute minimum ||charge per call). That's four dollars for every LOGIN FAILED, etc., ||of which we are getting to damn many. |How does uunet determine its billing? I can't believe that there could be a |connect charge without a login. How would they know who placed the call? |I could believe they might charge for FAILED(startup), although they shouldn't. Uunet does not bill like this. They start the time after the uucico's identify each other to themselves. How can you tell who it is if they don't successfully log in anyway? Rick has ESP mabye? rob
plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) (07/24/88)
+---- | +---- | | +---- | | | It costs me $4.00 every time their modem answers (3 minute minimum | | | charge per call). That's four dollars for every LOGIN FAILED, etc., | | +---- | | How does uunet determine its billing? | +---- | Uunet does not bill like this. | Rick has ESP mabye? +---- Not uunet, dammit, Ma Bell. Long distance on certain carriers with their own calling plans. Ma Bell charges starting whenever the other end of the line answers. She don't care if the modems ever *do* anything, she gets her $ out of you. -John Plocher
lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair) (07/25/88)
In article <379@uport.UUCP> @uport.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: |+---- || +---- || | +---- || | | It costs me $4.00 every time their modem answers (3 minute minimum || | | charge per call). That's four dollars for every LOGIN FAILED, etc., || | +---- || | How does uunet determine its billing? || +---- || Uunet does not bill like this. || Rick has ESP mabye? |+---- | |Not uunet, dammit, Ma Bell. Long distance on certain carriers with |their own calling plans. Ma Bell charges starting whenever the other |end of the line answers. She don't care if the modems ever *do* anything, |she gets her $ out of you. In that case, wouldn't it be more reasonable to use uunet's 800 number? I can't imagine how any calling plan that cost $4 for a one or two minute call could make up the difference between calling in on the local line instead of the 800 number.
lyndon@ncc.Nexus.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) (07/26/88)
In article <850@vsi1.UUCP> lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair) writes: > [ ... ] >In that case, wouldn't it be more reasonable to use uunet's 800 number? >I can't imagine how any calling plan that cost $4 for a one or two minute >call could make up the difference between calling in on the local line >instead of the 800 number. Which doesn't work from Canada... -- VE6BBM {alberta,pyramid,uunet}!ncc!lyndon lyndon@Nexus.CA