[comp.mail.uucp] map entries, was

red@redpoll.neoucom.edu (Richard E. Depew) (12/07/90)

In article <1CE00001.ab22ep@tbomb.ice.com> time@tbomb.ice.com 
(Tim Endres) writes:
>In article <RZ9PT1w163w@bluemoon.uucp>, grant@bluemoon.uucp
>(Grant DeLorean) writes:
>>  I guess I should go look at the maps before speaking, but why have
>> yourself listed in the maps as connecting to other systems with a
>> full map entry if you don't want mail mapped through you?
>> 
>This is required so that people know how to get mail *to* me as well
>as *through* me. If I don't list the hosts I talk to, you don't know
>how to get to me.
[stuff deleted]
>Of course, the case in which you wish to forward mail downward(out?),
>but not upward(in?), I have never seen before, but I suspect that even
>this can be handled. It is a *directed* graph after all.
>
>tim.

Grant is right.  The map entry for your site shows what other sites you
are willing to forward mail to, and how frequently you will forward.
You don't need a map entry to receive mail.  All you need is for your
neighbor's map entries to show a connection to your site.  There are
many such UUCP "finge" sites in the paths file.  Without a map entry,
they are as accessable as any "mapped" site, but will not forward mail
to any other site.  Of course, many of these sites only have one UUCP
connection, so they can't participate in the UUCP barter of "you forward
my mail and I'll forward yours" even if they wanted to.  :-)

Any site that shows "fast" connections to other sites in their UUCP
map entry, but then complains about these connections being used, has
misunderstood the purpose of the map, and should mark their
connections as much more expensive or even DEAD, if they wish them not
to be used by other sites.

Dick Depew
-- 
Richard E. Depew                      red@redpoll.neoucom.edu
Village of Munroe Falls, OH.          uunet!aablue!redpoll!red

mjs@cbnews.att.com (martin.j.shannon) (12/08/90)

In article <1990Dec6.234602.8062@redpoll.neoucom.edu>, red@redpoll.neoucom.edu (Richard E. Depew) writes:
> In article <1CE00001.ab22ep@tbomb.ice.com> time@tbomb.ice.com 
> (Tim Endres) writes:
> >In article <RZ9PT1w163w@bluemoon.uucp>, grant@bluemoon.uucp
> >(Grant DeLorean) writes:
> >>  I guess I should go look at the maps before speaking, but why have
> >> yourself listed in the maps as connecting to other systems with a
> >> full map entry if you don't want mail mapped through you?
> >> 
> >This is required so that people know how to get mail *to* me as well
> >as *through* me. If I don't list the hosts I talk to, you don't know
> >how to get to me.
[stuff deleted]
> >tim.
> 
> Grant is right.  The map entry for your site shows what other sites you
> are willing to forward mail to, and how frequently you will forward.
> You don't need a map entry to receive mail.  All you need is for your
> neighbor's map entries to show a connection to your site.  There are
> many such UUCP "finge" sites in the paths file.  Without a map entry,
> they are as accessable as any "mapped" site, but will not forward mail
> to any other site.  Of course, many of these sites only have one UUCP
> connection, so they can't participate in the UUCP barter of "you forward
> my mail and I'll forward yours" even if they wanted to.  :-)
> 
> Any site that shows "fast" connections to other sites in their UUCP
> map entry, but then complains about these connections being used, has
> misunderstood the purpose of the map, and should mark their
> connections as much more expensive or even DEAD, if they wish them not
> to be used by other sites.

But, if I understand the instructions that I received when I connected
my home machine to att, they recommend indicating that att is a
terminal site:

mysite	<att>(DEMAND)

For machines within AT&T, known to the "att" machine(s), this is not
necessary (or useful), but for external machines subscribing to what I
believe they call "gateway" service, not using the terminal link syntax
is just plain wrong.

This is just my interpretation of the info I received, and is not a
formal statement of AT&T policy.  I believe it to be correct, but it is
possible that I've misunderstood.
-- 
Marty Shannon; AT&T Bell Labs; Liberty Corner, NJ, USA
(Affiliation is given for identification only:
I don't speak for them; they don't speak for me.)