chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (07/21/90)
A long time ago, I started the "Death of UUCP Zone" thread. I'm not sure that was a good idea. Anyway, the discussion has gotten way out of hand. Many seem intent on making their points. Few seem to be reading or learning. Perhaps we could reach some conclusions [ha! -ed] if we were to make clear what points we're arguing. * Is source routing necessary? * Will source routing always be necessary? * In the transition from Internet transport (SMTP) to or from UUCP transport, should a gateway mailer change the format of the message *envelope* address? Should it change the format of the message *header* address(es)? Why? * If UUCP is considered merely a mail transport medium, why not leave RFC822 addresses intact even when a message is sent via UUCP? If UUCP is considered to be a separate network, why is the NIC busily registering UUCP-only sites? * Given that the RFC822 syntax for source routing has been obsoleted, and assuming that source routing will be necessary for some time to come, what syntax should be used for source routing? Is there a reason not to use bang paths? * Does the Internet DNS have delusions of grandeur in presuming to know about *every* mail domain, even those which aren't on the Internet? [1/2 :-)] Perhaps these questions will help posters recast their arguments into more rational reasoning, instead of the impassioned cries of "That's broken!" and "That's not fair!" that keep cropping up. -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!ateng!tct!chip>
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/22/90)
In article <26A738A8.725B@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > * Is source routing necessary? Yes. Very rarely, but occasionally. It should be supported but *not* encouraged, particularly at the MUA level. > * Will source routing always be necessary? So long as sites are free to make UUCP connections. > * In the transition from Internet transport (SMTP) to or from > UUCP transport, should a gateway mailer change the format of > the message *envelope* address? Only if it know that the system it's talking to needs it, and only if information is preserved. > Should it change the format > of the message *header* address(es)? No. > * If UUCP is considered merely a mail transport medium, why not > leave RFC822 addresses intact even when a message is sent via > UUCP? Good question. > * Given that the RFC822 syntax for source routing has been > obsoleted, and assuming that source routing will be necessary > for some time to come, what syntax should be used for source > routing? Pure bang paths. They work. > * Does the Internet DNS have delusions of grandeur in presuming > to know about *every* mail domain, even those which aren't on > the Internet? [1/2 :-)] Yes, but they should be encouraged in this delusion lest the greater ill of X.400 replace them. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>