sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) (12/30/90)
I guess I didn't make myself terribly clear, since a couple of people have told me the same information. All but a handful of my outgoing mail goes through ucscc. Since I'm running mmdf, I have things set up very nicely (i.e., I don't run pathalias). The problem is people who mail to *me*. If they are running pathalias, the mail gets routed through the sco somehow, not ucscc (which is about 8 times quicker). *uunet* routes mail to kithrup.uucp through sco, instead of uucp. One person told me to get a registered domain. I do: kithrup.com. Now, is there some magic I can put into my map entry (or a forged map entry for ucscc, which I would prefer not to do) which will stop messages being routed through sco? Thanks again... -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) (12/31/90)
In article <1990Dec29.182422.8788@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: | I guess I didn't make myself terribly clear, since a couple | of people have told me the same information. | Now, is there some magic I can put into my map entry ... | which will stop messages being routed through sco? Sure. Remove the connection to sco from your map entry. -- Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757
oc@vmp.com (Orlan Cannon) (12/31/90)
In article <1990Dec29.182422.8788@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >All but a handful of my outgoing mail goes through ucscc. Since I'm running >mmdf, I have things set up very nicely (i.e., I don't run pathalias). The >problem is people who mail to *me*. If they are running pathalias, the mail >gets routed through the sco somehow, not ucscc (which is about 8 times >quicker). *uunet* routes mail to kithrup.uucp through sco, instead of uucp. Most sites that run pathalias do so with just the UUCP maps as input. However, pathalias is distributed with the tools to include all Internet sites as well. Here we feed a copy of HOSTS.TXT (from nic.ddn.mil) into arpatxt (supplied with the pathalias distribution) to create what we call "d.Internet". When we run this plus the UUCP maps through pathalias, the entry for kithrup becomes: kithrup uupsi!ucscc.ucsc.edu!kithrup!%s which is exactly what he wants. Any mail being generated on Internet sites or which passes through rabidly rerouting Internet sites or which is generated on sites that reasonably include the Internet sites in their pathalias databases will follow this route. I must admit that I'm surprised that UUNET doesn't route via the Internet. -- Orlan Cannon oc@vmp.com Video Marketing & Publications, Inc. (800) 627-4551 Oradell, NJ 07649
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (12/31/90)
In article <1990Dec30.193407.9712@rfengr.com> rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) writes: >Sure. Remove the connection to sco from your map entry. Actually, someone who responded apparantly tried that. Pathalias very nicely came up with the route ...!sco!ucscc!kithrup!sef Uh-huh. That's *real* efficient. Based on advice I got from email, here's what my map entry looks like. Anybody think it *won't* help? (Assuming the map entries for northern-ca get updated, that is...) kithrup .kithrup.com(LOCAL) kithrup= kithrup.kithrup.com kithrup ucscc(DIRECT),sco(DEMAND) Thanks again... -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (12/31/90)
In article <PCG.90Dec31145142@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > [ ... kithrup has links to both SCO, a USENET site, and > ucscc, which is an Internet site but has an UUCP link to > kithrup, yet does not advertise itself as a USENET site or > an Internet-USENET gateway ... ] Excuse me, but what in the world is an "Internet-USENET gateway"? Usenet is just a name for the set of computers worldwide that exchange Netnews (not mail), regardless of the communications nets they use to do so. It has nothing to do with mail routing, and there is no way to describe a site's Usenet presence or absence in the UUCP maps, except informally through comments. I would not ordinarily object to casual misuse of the basic mail/news terminology, but when someone of Piercarlo's stature gets it wrong, and bases an entire long argument on it, I have to wonder what he really means. There is no such thing as a "Usenet gateway" for mail. If there is some kind of mail gateway one is not supposed to set up, what IS it, actually? -- The most common given name in the world is Mohammad; | Tom Neff the most common family name in the world is Chang. | Can you imagine the enormous number of people in the | tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM world named Mohammad Chang? -- Derek Wills | uunet!bfmny0!tneff
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (12/31/90)
rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) writes: > Sure. Remove the connection to sco from your map entry. Err... given that his other feed ucscc has no map entry, then *how* are UUCP-only sites meant to mail him ? Besides, that's not correct, he'd have to get himself taken out of sco's map entry, not the other way round. -- ronald@robobar.co.uk +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) (12/31/90)
In article <1990Dec31.005650.20223@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: > Based on advice I got from email, here's what my map entry > looks like. Anybody think it *won't* help? (Assuming the > map entries for northern-ca get updated, that is...) kithrup .kithrup.com(LOCAL) kithrup= kithrup.kithrup.com kithrup ucscc(DIRECT),sco(DEMAND) My suggestion to remove sco was really a joke, because it wouldn't help anymore than this idea. If ucscc doesn't have a map entry, then the maps won't be able to resolve a path to it EXCEPT THROUGH KITHRUP. You may end up feeding ucscc! Nope, there's a reason why ucscc doesn't have a map entry. I don't know what it is, but I suspect that you will find out if you post one "for" them. -- Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757
fair@Apple.COM (Erik E. Fair) (12/31/90)
In the referenced article, oc@vmp.com (Orlan Cannon) writes: > >Most sites that run pathalias do so with just the UUCP maps as >input. However, pathalias is distributed with the tools to include >all Internet sites as well. > >Here we feed a copy of HOSTS.TXT (from nic.ddn.mil) into arpatxt >(supplied with the pathalias distribution) to create what we call >"d.Internet". arpatxt has been deprecated. It doesn't work correctly unless you manually maintain a file of "arpa-privates" that declares dead a large set of Internet sites that do NOT correspond with UUCP sites with the same primary name. Bob Swan of U of Lowell was the last one doing the maintenance of this file, and he quit after I posted the enclosed awk script. Try it. You'll like it. I do. Erik E. Fair apple!fair fair@apple.com #!/bin/awk -f # MKGLUE: UUCP map post processor # Idea from Mel Pleasant via Eliot Lear # Erik E. Fair <fair@apple.com>, August, 1988 # # revised from domains.txt on December 31, 1990 # # What we have here is a UUCP map postprocessor. To use: # pathalias uucpmaps > /tmp/paths.raw # mkglue /tmp/paths.raw > /tmp/glue # pathalias uucpmaps /tmp/glue > /tmp/paths.refined # do whatever you do with the maps here # # what this does is find Internet EQUIVALENCES for UUCP sites, e.g. # # ucbvax= ucbvax.berkeley.edu # apple= apple.com # # and then it reverses them, and puts all the domain names it finds into # a completely connected network called "INTERNET", with COST defined # below. That cost was determined experimentally on a Cray X/MP-48 # (pathalias will run on such a beast. It takes only 24 seconds to # process all the maps and the glue file. It's amazing what you can do # with a supercomputer). Your milage may vary. # # The effect of this is to cause nearly all your paths to take their # first hop through the Internet. DO NOT USE THIS POSTPROCESSOR, unless # you're actually on the Internet, or you have multiple UUCP neighbors # who are on the Internet of equivalent call cost to you. # # This script will NOT do anything with domain gateway declarations, e.g. # # foo .bar.com # # because these do not provide a mapping between the Internet name and # the UUCP name of the UUCP host involved. This script makes no # distinction between "real" Internet hosts and "fake" (MX'd) ones (how # can I? The information isn't there). Even with an MX host, someone on # the Internet is accepting mail for them (that's what MX is all about). # # Encourage your Internet friends and neighbors to put all the right # information into the UUCP maps. # # Also, your mailer must be able to transform thusly: # # do.main!foo!bar!bazz -> foo!bar!bazz@do.main # # since that's what the database will generate. I do it with sendmail, # and I installed the uunet hacks to 5.59 sendmail to look stuff up in a # DBM database. I expect that the IDA sendmail stuff can be similarly # coerced to do this. # # If nothing else, you might find the report at the end of the glue file # interesting. # BEGIN{ COST = "DEMAND+LOW"; # domain["arpa"] = 1; domain["nato"] = 1; domain["com"] = 1; domain["gov"] = 1; domain["mil"] = 1; domain["org"] = 1; domain["edu"] = 1; domain["net"] = 1; domain["int"] = 1; domain["ar"] = 1; domain["at"] = 1; domain["au"] = 1; domain["be"] = 1; domain["br"] = 1; domain["ca"] = 1; domain["ch"] = 1; domain["cl"] = 1; domain["cn"] = 1; domain["cr"] = 1; domain["cs"] = 1; domain["de"] = 1; domain["dk"] = 1; domain["eg"] = 1; domain["es"] = 1; domain["fi"] = 1; domain["fr"] = 1; domain["gr"] = 1; domain["hk"] = 1; domain["hu"] = 1; domain["ie"] = 1; domain["il"] = 1; domain["in"] = 1; domain["is"] = 1; domain["it"] = 1; domain["jp"] = 1; domain["kr"] = 1; domain["lk"] = 1; domain["mx"] = 1; domain["my"] = 1; domain["ni"] = 1; domain["nl"] = 1; domain["no"] = 1; domain["nz"] = 1; domain["ph"] = 1; domain["pl"] = 1; domain["pr"] = 1; domain["pt"] = 1; domain["se"] = 1; domain["sg"] = 1; domain["su"] = 1; domain["th"] = 1; domain["tr"] = 1; domain["tw"] = 1; domain["uk"] = 1; domain["us"] = 1; domain["uy"] = 1; domain["yu"] = 1; domain["za"] = 1; nbad = 0; imon_inet = 0; } # ignore domain gateways (no clean mapping - we must know the internet name) /^\./ {next} $2 == "%s" { # hopefully only one of these if ( $1 !~ /\./ ) { localuucpname = $1; next; } } # here's the meat of the matter - find real domains and reverse the # equivalences so that pathalias will give us paths with internet # names in them. $1 ~ /\./ { hostname= $1; curbad = 0; # check top of domain name for validity i = split(hostname, parts, "."); top = parts[i]; if (domain[top] != 1) { printf("# bad domain - %s\n", hostname); badtop[top]++; nbad++; curbad = 1; } else domtop[top]++; n = split($2, path, "!"); if (n > 1) { uucpname= path[n - 1]; if (hostname == uucpname) next; # skip two sided dot aliases i = split(uucpname, parts, "."); if (i < 2) { if (! curbad) { print hostname "=" uucpname; internet[hostname]++; } } else if (domain[parts[i]] == 1) { print uucpname "=" hostname; internet[uucpname]++; } } else if ($2 == "%s") { if (imon_inet && localuucpname != "" && !curbad) { print localinetname "=" localuucpname; internet[localinetname]++; } if (!curbad) { localinetname= $1; internet[localinetname]++; imon_inet++ } } } # now create a completely connected network of the domain names, # with a low cost, so that we mostly use the Internet in preference # to any other path END{ if (imon_inet) { print localinetname "=" localuucpname; } print "INTERNET={" for(hostname in internet) { printf("\t%s,\n", hostname); } printf("\t}(%s)\n", COST); # # report on what we found while perusing the map data # printf("# top level domains\n"); for(top in domtop) { printf("#\t%s\t%d\n", top, domtop[top]); } # if (nbad > 0) { printf("\n# unrecognized summary:\n"); for(dom in badtop) { printf("#\t%s\t%d\n", dom, badtop[dom]); } } }
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (12/31/90)
On 29 Dec 90 18:24:22 GMT, sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) said: sef> I guess I didn't make myself terribly clear, since a couple of sef> people have told me the same information. In your previous message you did make yourself terribly clear, but I had hoped that nobody would notice -- now that you are insisting, a reply will have to come. [ ... kithrup has links to both SCO, a USENET site, and ucscc, which is an Internet site but has an UUCP link to kithrup, yet does not advertise itself as a USENET site or an Internet-USENET gateway ... ] sef> All but a handful of my outgoing mail goes through ucscc. Since sef> I'm running mmdf, I have things set up very nicely (i.e., I don't sef> run pathalias). The problem is people who mail to *me*. If they sef> are running pathalias, the mail gets routed through the sco sef> somehow, not ucscc (which is about 8 times quicker). *uunet* sef> routes mail to kithrup.uucp through sco, instead of uucp. sef> one person told me to get a registered domain. I do: kithrup.com. A registration in the DNS implies an MX record pointing to you -- this means that Internet sites that want to reach you already see 'ucscc' as their gateway to you. Thus the reason why you would like to register ucscc as an Internet to USENET gateway in the UUCP maps must be so that other USENET sites, which use the maps as condensed by pathalias instead of the DNS, could reach you using the Internet as a fast and free long distance link, by doing USENET-Internet-USENET routes (that you seem to imply to use yourself when sending mail). Forunately 'uunet' do the proper thing instead. sef> Now, is there some magic I can put into my map entry (or a forged sef> map entry for ucscc, which I would prefer not to do) which will sef> stop messages being routed through sco? There are two problems, that you describe yourself as doing or considering actions that are either illegal or extremely rude, as: 1) The Internet cannot be used in any circumstance as part of a route between two USENET sites. 2) The Internet backbone and many regional IP networks cannot be used even between two Internet sites if the traffic is strictly private or commercial. 3) Advertising 'ucscc' in the UUCP maps as being a USENET site *and* an Internet-USENET gateway without telling them is regarded as unspeakably rude. Thank goodness you would prefer not to do it. I have no reason to doubt that currently you discriminate and are careful to send traffic via 'ucscc' onto the Internet only when the destination site is on the Internet *and* the traffic is related to education or research, and you route via 'sco' all traffic that is commercial or private in nature or has a USENET site destination. For the sake of avoiding possibly very serious trouble for yourself, 'ucscc', and a lot of sites that value Internet/USENET connectivity and do not want to see it imperiled by freeloaders, please do not even consider beginning to use your 'ucscc' connection to the Internet for personal or commercial traffic, or to act as a the-taxpayer-be-damned, free, quick channel between you and another USENET site, and tricking 'uunet' or other sites into cooperating with this by faking an entry for 'ucscc' as an Internet-USENET gateway without even telling them. Somehow I am reminded of Pepys' famous diary when he writes about catholics being found out and executed in England a few hundred years ago to the the effect that "I wish to God that they either conform or be wiser and not be caught", except that I somehow suspect that your motives into considering certain quick fixes have little to do with noble issues such as freedom of worship, but maybe of Mammon. As to me, I pay for every single private or non strictly research or education related e-mail message, photocopy, laser print, or phone call I make in this University, and I am grateful for the concession, as it is much more convenient for me to do such things here than having to wait to be at home, and I think that having to reimburse the cost is only fair. -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (01/01/91)
In article <1990Dec29.182422.8788@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >I guess I didn't make myself terribly clear, since a couple of people have >told me the same information. >All but a handful of my outgoing mail goes through ucscc. Since I'm running >mmdf, I have things set up very nicely (i.e., I don't run pathalias). The >problem is people who mail to *me*. If they are running pathalias, the mail >gets routed through the sco somehow, not ucscc (which is about 8 times >quicker). *uunet* routes mail to kithrup.uucp through sco, instead of uucp. >One person told me to get a registered domain. I do: kithrup.com. If you send mail to kithrup.com it should go to where your mx record sends it (i.e. off-internet sites would send to an internet gateway to resolve it). If you send to kithrup.uucp, it is resolved through the uucp maps at sites that use the maps (this includes uunet). There is no particular reason for anyone to think that kithrup.uucp and kithrup.com have anything to do with each other - only you and your internet forwarder know for sure. >Now, is there some magic I can put into my map entry (or a forged map entry >for ucscc, which I would prefer not to do) which will stop messages being >routed through sco? Just tell people to use the kithrup.com address. If you are talking about replies to your mail, then you need to get the domain name into your From: lines. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (01/01/91)
In article <1990Dec30.194331.16965@vmp.com> oc@vmp.com (Orlan Cannon) writes: >Here we feed a copy of HOSTS.TXT (from nic.ddn.mil) into arpatxt >(supplied with the pathalias distribution) to create what we call >"d.Internet". When we run this plus the UUCP maps through pathalias, >the entry for kithrup becomes: >kithrup uupsi!ucscc.ucsc.edu!kithrup!%s But, this requires the sending site (or the smart-host doing the lookup) to make this non-standard step. So it's not going to help unless everyone does it. >I must admit that I'm surprised that UUNET doesn't route via the >Internet. Why? They get paid for the uucp connect time and for the people they care about (direct-connect uucp paying customers) sending direct is likely to be faster. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
revell@uunet.UU.NET (James R Revell Jr) (01/01/91)
In article <1990Dec30.194331.16965@vmp.com> oc@vmp.com (Orlan Cannon) writes: } In article <1990Dec29.182422.8788@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: } Here we feed a copy of HOSTS.TXT (from nic.ddn.mil) into arpatxt } (supplied with the pathalias distribution) to create what we call } "d.Internet". When we run this plus the UUCP maps through pathalias, } the entry for kithrup becomes: } } kithrup uupsi!ucscc.ucsc.edu!kithrup!%s The problem is that you're now using the internet solely as a transmit medium. That is, neither source nor destination is on the internet. Strictly speaking, this is a internet no no. You might want to reconsider use of such routes. } I must admit that I'm surprised that UUNET doesn't route via the Internet. Don't be. We'd be setting ourselves up for a lot of trouble if we did. Violation of NSF regulations by a connected site is a good way to loose connected status. -- James Revell senior uunet postmaster <revell@uunet.uu.net> /8^{~
emv@ox.com (Ed Vielmetti) (01/01/91)
In article <1990Dec29.182422.8788@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
Path: ox.com!umich!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!csun!kithrup!sef
Now, is there some magic I can put into my map entry (or a forged map entry
for ucscc, which I would prefer not to do) which will stop messages being
routed through sco?
Neither of the u.usa.ca maps for ucscc and sco acknowlege a uucp
connection to a site named kithrup. Ask both of these postmasters to
update their maps with an appropriately measured link to you, rather
than forging your own map entries for them.
The only reason that pathalias can find a link to you at all is
because it assumes that (from the man page)
If a link is encountered more than once, the least-cost
occurrence dictates the cost and network character. Links
are treated as bidirectional but asymmetric: for each link
declared in the input, a DEAD reverse link is assumed.
i.e.
kithrup sco(DEMAND),ucscc(DIRECT)
yields
sco kithrup(DEAD)
ucscc kithrup(DEAD)
in the absence of sco or ucscc having a specified link weight, and
pathalias's logic picks equal-weight links in alpha order (allegra
before seismo).
--Ed
Edward Vielmetti, MSEN
emv@ox.com
ps. current pathalias lives in
Archive: citi.umich.edu:/pub/honey/pathalias.Z [141.211.128.16]les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (01/01/91)
In article <116623@uunet.UU.NET> revell@uunet.uu.net (James R Revell Jr) writes: >The problem is that you're now using the internet solely as a transmit >medium. That is, neither source nor destination is on the internet. >Strictly speaking, this is a internet no no. You might want to reconsider >use of such routes. And just exactly what is supposed to happen to mail that is sent from a uucp site using the DNS-registered addresses for another uucp site? Even if the machines share common uucp connections, there is no reason for anyone but the mx-er and forwarder to know what the DNS name means. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (01/02/91)
In the referenced article tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: #In article <PCG.90Dec31145142@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: #> [ ... kithrup has links to both SCO, a USENET site, and #> ucscc, which is an Internet site but has an UUCP link to #> kithrup, yet does not advertise itself as a USENET site or #> an Internet-USENET gateway ... ] # #Excuse me, but what in the world is an "Internet-USENET gateway"? # #I would not ordinarily object to casual misuse of the basic mail/news #terminology, but when someone of Piercarlo's stature gets it wrong, and #bases an entire long argument on it, I have to wonder what he really means. I shouldn't worry about it - or anything else that Piercarlo posts. It is his normal way to almost totally misunderstand a situation, build a whole false edifice based on a small grain of truth, then post polemics complaining that the situation he has imagined is wrong. I used to argue with him - especially because of that grain of truth which sometimes does need to be dealt with - but I have learned that it is a waste of time. And nobody should believe any of his statements about how the various nets are organised unless they are corroborated by other, competent, people. I am sorry to so denigrate the views of another member of the net: it is not my usual way. But Piercarlo has confused so many arguements with his distorted view of the world that I consider it necessary to warn others. Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW Usenet works on the principle that 10,000 people know more about the answer to any question than one does. Unfortunately they know 10,000 different answers.
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (01/03/91)
On 31 Dec 90 03:26:02 GMT, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) said:
tneff> In article <PCG.90Dec31145142@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk>
tneff> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
pcg> [ ... kithrup has links to both SCO, a USENET site, and
pcg> ucscc, which is an Internet site but has an UUCP link to
pcg> kithrup, yet does not advertise itself as a USENET site or
pcg> an Internet-USENET gateway ... ]
tneff> Excuse me, but what in the world is an "Internet-USENET gateway"?
tneff> Usenet is just a name for the set of computers worldwide that
tneff> exchange Netnews (not mail),
Ah yes, sorry for the imprecision; I have already received complaints by
mail for the misuse. I misused USENET (knowing very well that it is
strictly speaking the set of sites that carry certain News hierarchies,
by whatever means), in the frequent colloquial/historical sense of "set
of sistes that use the UUCP FTP to communicate, e.g. for mail
transport". A lot of people use TCP/IP as synonym for Internet, when
there are lots of TCP/IP networks that have nothing to do with it. Well,
two wrongs do not one right make...
tneff> I would not ordinarily object to casual misuse of the basic
tneff> mail/news terminology,
I am sorry about that, but frankly I cannot imagine any really good
term. UUCP zone (the set of sites that appear in the maps produced by
the UUCP mapping project of old, as far as I know) proably would have
been more appropriate, but I was note sure that it is as popular. On the
other hand the meaning attributed to USENET in my posting was clear, I
hope.
tneff> If there is some kind of mail gateway one is not supposed to set
tneff> up, what IS it, actually?
Well a UUCP zone/Internet gateway *can* be set up, e.g. ucscc, but the
original poster wanted to *advertise* it as such in the maps, which
should not be done without their knowledge.
There is also the serious technical problem that there are *no* (RFC 976
-- if I remember well the number -- notwithstanding) standards for
gatewaying from the Internet to any other different network, including
Janet and the UUCP zone, and so there are loads of trouble.
Not just the Internet lacks standards for gateways to other mail zones,
I do not actually know of any other zone design that has them. All
standard designers evidently assume that networks based on their
standards are either entirely self contained or that different standards
are 100% equivalent to one another, so that translation is always
possible. Pah.
--
Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.ukpcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (01/03/91)
On 1 Jan 91 22:55:20 GMT, dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) said: dww> In the referenced article tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: pcg> In article <PCG.90Dec31145142@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: tneff> Excuse me, but what in the world is an "Internet-USENET gateway"? tneff> I would not ordinarily object to casual misuse of the basic tneff> mail/news terminology, but when someone of Piercarlo's stature tneff> gets it wrong, and bases an entire long argument on it, I have to tneff> wonder what he really means. Please note the (gentle, and well accepted) irony: the paragraph above can be read "Piercarlo's entire argument makes no sense whatever because it is based entirely on totally inappropriate terminology". It can also be read in many other ways. I like this style. I like less this style: dww> I shouldn't worry about it - or anything else that Piercarlo posts. dww> It is his normal way to almost totally misunderstand a situation, dww> build a whole false edifice based on a small grain of truth, then dww> post polemics complaining that the situation he has imagined is dww> wrong. [ ... and worse ... ] This is called humour-impairment, man. Cool your jets :->. As to whether there is really something strange in the water in Aberyswyth, let the readership beware. I am quite sure that they can make up their own minds. Networks are a very political thing, and everybody knows, or ought to know, that. Maybe not everybody knows that I have no interest whatsoever in these politics except intellectual curiosity and concern over an important aspect of the field which I have chosen for my career. I am not selling anything here -- I am just a wary customer. Others cannot say the same. Rubbishing other people's reputation in the extravagant way you use demonstrates little diplomatic sense. Or maybe you want to become a celebrity -- maybe one day it will be possible to prove attribution, and then you make history by being the first person to lose a million pounds thanks to a posting. Keep trying :->. -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (01/03/91)
On 1 Jan 91 08:51:10 GMT, les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) said:
les> In article <116623@uunet.UU.NET> revell@uunet.uu.net (James R
les> Revell Jr) writes:
revell> The problem is that you're now using the internet solely as a
revell> transmit medium. That is, neither source nor destination is on
revell> the internet. Strictly speaking, this is a internet no no. You
revell> might want to reconsider use of such routes.
les> And just exactly what is supposed to happen to mail that is sent from
les> a uucp site using the DNS-registered addresses for another uucp site?
Well, if this is a pure UUCP site its MTA is given something like
a!b!c!d!e.f.g!u
as destination; There is no reason to assume that any of these is DNS
registered, indeed for a pure UUCP site the DNS does not exist.
If it is a dumb MTA, the UUCP maps do not exist either, and it just
executes something like
uux ... "a!rmail 'b!c!d!e.f.g!u'" ...
which will fail if 'a' is not a neighbour.
Or if it is an "intelligent" MTA, it has maps, and discovers that the
site called 'e.f.g' which has a neighbour called 'e' which has a
neighbour called 'c' which has a neighbour called 'a' is really called
'z' (because such is its alias in the map) which can be reached more
cheaply via 'x' and 'y', and spews out:
uux ... "x!rmail 'y!z!u'" ...
IMPORTANT NOTES:
1) a properly intelligent UUCP MTA (MUA if you are one fo those that
believe that routing ought to be done at the MUA level) shall never,
repeat NEVER, assume on its own that a host name with dots in it is on
the Internet; it could be on Janet, or on a private TCP/IP network, or
an X.400 address, or ...;
2) it should not necessarily assume either that the relative address
given by a user is in fact a route, this whether the first hostname on
the relative address is a neighbour or not;
3) note that 2) does not mean that "aggressive rerouting" is allowed --
here we are at the *source* site, and this is *routing*, not rerouting.
Of course an intelligent UUCP MTA will have a switch to let the user
specify a route instead of an address. Those that appear in the envelope
of mail in transit are *always* routes, instead, and should be treated
as such, and should only be touched to *prepend* to them.
Just to insist on the latter point, which is often misunderstood by
rabid rerouters: the only time one is allowed to touch a route in the
envelope is the following; assume we get a route such as the
a!b!c!d!e.f.g!u
above. The only transformation allowed is something like
uux ... "p!rmail q!a!b!c!d!e.f.g!u" ...
if the MTA determines that the best way to get to 'a' from the local
site is something like relaying via 'p' and 'q'. This is permissible
even if 'a' is listed as a direct neighbour of the local site, because
it *may* be cheaper or quicker to go via 'p!q' rather than directly, and
this can only be decided locally at the moment of forwarding (for
example the direct link to 'a' may be down for a day).
One should normally refrain from programming an MTA to do so however,
just in the interest of predictable path'ing. After all if people see in
the maps that a site is a direct neighbour of 'a' and compute a route
thru that site and 'a' based on that information, that ought to be based
on the map-induced expectation that the direct 'a' links is the "best"
route. If the site instead systematically forwards to 'a' thru an
indirect link, that means that the maps are simply wrong and should be
updated, so that other sites can also calculate as best the indirect
route.
les> Even if the machines share common uucp connections, there is no reason
les> for anyone but the mx-er and forwarder to know what the DNS name means.
Ahhh. We were speaking UUCP to UUCP. If a site can get mx records it
*is* on the Internet, and it is thus a gateway between the Internet and
the UUCPspace (do you like this better than USENET? :->). Different
rules apply, also legal. An Internet site *can* use the Internet to send
mail to a UUCP site, because the Internet is not being used solely as as
a leg of a non-Internet to non-Internet path.
--
Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.ukwain@seac.UUCP (Wain Dobson) (01/04/91)
In article <3882@stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: >In the referenced article tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >#In article <PCG.90Dec31145142@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > >I am sorry to so denigrate the views of another member of the net: it is >not my usual way. But Piercarlo has confused so many arguements with his >distorted view of the world that I consider it necessary to warn others. > Thanks David, think most readers saw through the polemics. I guess what I'm wondering, is whether you ever won any of the arguments. :-) -- Wain Dobson, Vancouver, B.C. ...!{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!seac!wain
Makey@Snoopy.Logicon.COM (Jeff Makey) (01/04/91)
In article <1991Jan01.085110.10170@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >Even if the machines share common uucp connections, there is no reason >for anyone but the mx-er and forwarder to know what the DNS name means. There is no good reason *not* to know the DNS names of your UUCP neighbors, and to be able to route directly to them regardless of the name used. It makes little sense to make a long-distance call to uunet (or wherever) just to send mail down the street. :: Jeff Makey Department of Tautological Pleonasms and Superfluous Redundancies Department Disclaimer: I am just a guest of Logicon. Domain: Makey@Logicon.COM UUCP: ucsd!snoopy!Makey
thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog) (01/06/91)
Mr. Grandi used an oddity of the English language called a 'synecdoche'. This is a reference to an object by naming a part of that object, c.f. a "field hand" or "deck hand". UseNet refers to the bulletin board system itself, he was talking about the larger UUCP/Internet web. Other than that, he uses the words correctly and gets the legalities correctly too. Pay attention! The Internet is being used as a "commons", as in "The Tragedy of the Commons". UUCP->Internet->UUCP is an abuse if it's not government-sponsored research, or you're not designing bombs :-) Synecdoche is your new word for the day. Pronounce the 'ch' 'sh'.
pjt@cpac.washington.edu (Larry Setlow) (01/06/91)
In article <37629@cup.portal.com> thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog) writes:
Synecdoche is your new word for the day. Pronounce the 'ch' 'sh'.
[email bounced. Think of this as my inappropriate post for the month]
Better still, prounounce the 'ch' as 'k' and the 'e' as 'ee'. Four
syllables, stress on the second.tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (01/07/91)
In article <37629@cup.portal.com> thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog) writes: >Mr. Grandi used an oddity of the English language called a 'synecdoche'. Even if he had, synecdoche has no proper place in a technical discussion about which networks should interconnect. The part cannot be casually substituted for the whole, or vice versa, when the very meat of the argument concerns inappropriate routing through parts and wholes. >The Internet is being used as a "commons", >as in "The Tragedy of the Commons". UUCP->Internet->UUCP is an abuse >if it's not government-sponsored research, or you're not designing bombs :-) First of all, there is a distinction between simple misuse of an apparently free resource, versus the specific economic paradox embodied in the "Tragedy of the Commons." In the latter (Commons) case, it was explicitly in each user's interest to maximize his (quite permissible) use of the resource, in order that he not suffer competitively with other users; the end result being destruction of the resource for all. But in the Internet case, (a) there is no underlying right to use it as a third party mail carrier in the first place; (b) given the availability of non-Internet ways for many sites to get mail delivered (high speed modems make UUCP much more attractive, for instance), users are not compelled to keep using the Internet resource forever even as quality of service degrades with increased usage. They can switch to something else. So the much-overused Commons model fits poorly. What we really have is a modified black market, where the Man could theoretically lower the boom any day but doesn't, and where the door is always open for someone to come in and offer better service for a cheaper price -- but while the quasi-illicit resource is out there for the taking and not yet overwhelmed, only a few (like UUNET and PSI) will bother. Finally, there is not much hard data available on the extent of Internet misuse. What misuse does occur is only partly intentional; some of it is a by-product of inaccurate UUCP mapping, and could be corrected. >Synecdoche is your new word for the day. Pronounce the 'ch' 'sh'. Did you know that the word 'gullible' is not in the dictionary? (Synecdoche is, of course, pronounced sin-EK-duh-kee. Pedantry is its own reward :-) ) -- "I'm not sure I've even got the brains to #:# Tom Neff be President." -- Barry Goldwater, 1964 #:# tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (01/07/91)
According to thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog): >UUCP->Internet->UUCP is an abuse if it's not government-sponsored research, >or you're not designing bombs :-) If so, then why is the DNS so happy to register UUCP-only sites? Not that I'm complaining about the DNS, but it seems inconsistent. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "If Usenet exists, then what is its mailing address?" -- me "c/o The Daily Planet, Metropolis." -- Jeff Daiell
amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) (01/09/91)
In article <27887475.65E6@tct.uucp>, chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > If so, then why is the DNS so happy to register UUCP-only sites? Not > that I'm complaining about the DNS, but it seems inconsistent. DNS visibility has nothing to do with Internet connectivity as such. In fact, the DNS and IP network number applications make it quite clear that actual Internet connectivity is a separate issue that must be approved by the appropriate agencies. -- Amanda Walker Visix Software Inc.
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (01/09/91)
oc@vmp.com (Orlan Cannon) writes: >input. However, pathalias is distributed with the tools to include >all Internet sites as well. we just started doing this - and routing has improved - with the number of hops being cut by an average of 50% now we are looking for a way using smail3 to reroute all traffic via the internet where possible regardless of the incoming specified path -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0282 (HST/PEP/V.32/v.42bis) regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar!larry, larry%nstar@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu}
rdc30med@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (LCDR Michael E. Dobson) (01/09/91)
In article <27887475.65E6@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog): >>UUCP->Internet->UUCP is an abuse if it's not government-sponsored research, >>or you're not designing bombs :-) > >If so, then why is the DNS so happy to register UUCP-only sites? Not >that I'm complaining about the DNS, but it seems inconsistent. Perhaps to allow Internet sites to send mail to them by only having to specify user@site.dom.ain ? It sure makes life easier for me and my users. I can use the UUCP maps for one of my MUAs (ELM), but not the one used by the majority of my users, and not for the MTAs. So having MX records for UUCP sites served by an Internet site is A Good Thing(tm). I believe most dual sites (I am one) only advertise their UUCP links in the maps. I connect to some Internet sites via both SMTP and UUCP, but I only show the UUCP links. That way, the maps will only generate a UUCP path even though I could use the Internet for that hop (by could use I mean in the technology sense, not the legal sense). -- Mike Dobson, Sys Admin for | Internet: rdc30med@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil | UUCP: ...uunet!mimsy!nmrdc1!rdc30med AT&T 3B2/600G Sys V R 3.2.2 | BITNET: dobson@usuhsb or nrd0mxd@vmnmdsc WIN/TCP for 3B2 | MCI-Mail: 377-2719 or 0003772719@mcimail.com
jlister@slhisc.uucp (John Lister) (01/10/91)
In article <30703908@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >In article <37629@cup.portal.com> thinman@cup.portal.com (Lance C Norskog) writes: >>Mr. Grandi used an oddity of the English language called a 'synecdoche'. > >Even if he had, synecdoche has no proper place in a technical discussion >about which networks should interconnect. The part cannot be casually >substituted for the whole, or vice versa, when the very meat of the >argument concerns inappropriate routing through parts and wholes. [...discussion on internet use omitted...] >>Synecdoche is your new word for the day. Pronounce the 'ch' 'sh'. > >Did you know that the word 'gullible' is not in the dictionary? > >(Synecdoche is, of course, pronounced sin-EK-duh-kee. Pedantry is its >own reward :-) ) At the risk of turning this into lang.english.grammar, I would note that while we're talking about figures of speech, perhaps "litotes" might be appropriate in this case. The word is derived from the Greek meaning "plain" and its modern Greek derivative means "frugal". BTW: I thought they hanged pedants (Pun :-) John Lister.