pst@comdesign.cdi.com (Paul Traina) (10/06/88)
I have a feeling that the recent article on how to apply for a .US domain
incorrectly specifies how the usenet map entry should be written.
In the article, Geoff stated that a map entry should look like this...
#N .fernwood.mpk.ca.us, fernwood
#...blah blah blah
fernwood = fernwood.mpk.ca.us
fernwood .fernwood.mpk.ca.us
fernwood foobar(DIRECT), mcvax(LOCAL), uunet(DEAD), .....
I take exception to the "fernwood .fernwood.mpk.ca.us" line.
This implies that fernwood is a gateway to all machines under the
.fernwood.mpk.ca.us domain. However, there is no such domain. The
.US domain creators (in a move which I disagree with) decided that there
shall be only one host registered to one "quasi-domain". (I use quasi-domain
because 'fernwood.mpk.ca.us' is not a domain, it is a _host_ in the '.mpk.ca.us'
domain.
Otherwise, we could theoretically start making 'jim.fernwood.mpk.ca.us' and
'fred.fernwood.mpk.ca.us' ...etc.
The 'evil line' :-) is just adding more crap into an alread crowded paths
file, and it is implying something (that for any other domain would be ok)
which is bogus (that it is a gateway into a domain).
Spaf (if you're out there?) and the rest of the map handlers should consider
removing these lines from the maps files. (Isn't sed wonderful?)
Paul
p.s. btw, this isn't a flame, just an observation (half-smile)
do whatever you want to do, just don't hold it against me :-)
------
Paul Traina To believe that what is true for
{uunet|pyramid}!comdesign!pst you in your private heart is true
pst@condor.cdi.com for all men, that is genius.david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (10/12/88)
[to summarize .. Geoff is complaining because fernwood...us doesn't
have a line saying "fernwood .fernwood...us". The article I am
replying to asks why you'd want such a thing in the first place
since fernwood...us isn't a domain, it's a host.]
Why *wouldn't* you want such a thing?
I recently received a piece of mail from Erik Fair asking why I
didn't have a line "ukma=e.ms.uky.edu" in the ukma entry. But
what would be the point of that? I have a gateway announced
for BOTH .ms.uky.edu AND .uky.edu (as well as .ms.uky.csnet and
.uky.csnet), so if others' software is functioning correctly
(i.e. taking advantage of my gateway declaration) the routes
generated will go to the right place when given "e.ms.uky.edu".
To get back to the original question ...
declaring the gateway *does* handle the routing for fernwood...us.
In *addition* it gives you the flexibility of having other
hosts 'under' the fernwood name.
If there is to be a difference between domains and host names, why
isn't the difference made explicit in the way they are represented? I
put forward that since the representation is the same in either case,
then neither human nor software is able to tell a difference. If there
is no difference, then they are the same thing.
--
<-- David Herron; an MMDF guy <david@ms.uky.edu>
<-- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
<--
<-- "Smarter than the average pagan god ... "john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) (10/13/88)
In article <10357@s.ms.uky.edu>, david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) asks: > Why *wouldn't* you want such a thing? [as "fernwood .fernwood.mpk.ca.us" in your map entry] Then provides the seed of the answer: > declaring the gateway *does* handle the routing for fernwood...us. > In *addition* it gives you the flexibility of having other > hosts 'under' the fernwood name. Yes, it does, but by the definition of the .US domain, there can be no names under the fernwood.mpk.ca.us domain. anything.fernwood.mpk.ca.us (or anything.jetson.upma.md.us) is illegal. You can argue whether that should or shouldn't be true, but it simply is. (The idea is that anyone who needs more than one name should get a name in .COM, .EDU, .ORG, etc., perhaps through uunet or the UUCP Project.) > If there is to be a difference between domains and host names, why > isn't the difference made explicit in the way they are represented? I > put forward that since the representation is the same in either case, > then neither human nor software is able to tell a difference. If there > is no difference, then they are the same thing. Well, from what I hear, there will be a difference in the way smail 3.X handles fernwood .fernwood.mpk.ca.us and fernwood = fernwood.mpk.ca.us smail 2.x will still gateway mail to xyz.fernwood.mpk.ca.us to fernwood given the second form; smail 3.X will (correctly) reject this gateway (and eventually hit a general .US gateway which will bounce the message since no MX exists for *.fernwood.mpk.ca.us). -- John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net
wisner@zug.AI.MIT.EDU (Bill Wisner) (10/15/88)
# Well, from what I hear, there will be a difference in the way smail # 3.X handles # fernwood .fernwood.mpk.ca.us # and # fernwood = fernwood.mpk.ca.us Nooo. You're forgetting that smail (in any incarnation) never looks at the map files directly. That's pathalias's job.
john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) (10/20/88)
In article <3172@hermes.ai.mit.edu>, wisner@zug.AI.MIT.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: > # Well, from what I hear, there will be a difference in the way smail > # 3.X handles > # fernwood .fernwood.mpk.ca.us > # and > # fernwood = fernwood.mpk.ca.us > > Nooo. You're forgetting that smail (in any incarnation) never looks at > the map files directly. That's pathalias's job. OK, OK. I should have said that there will be a difference in the way smail 3.X handles .fernwood.mpk.ca.us some!path!fernwood!%s and fernwood.mpk.ca.us some!path!fernwood!%s Everything else I said is still true. I did find out some new information about the .US domain, with a lead from Henry Mensch. They are now allowing groups of hosts to be registered as fifth-level domains under a fourth-level domain. They still insist, however, that for the time being, all host names must be given to them: they will not do wildcard MX records. Since this is true, it's not unreasonable to have the UUCP maps follow the same pattern, and list all the fifth-level hosts explicitly. Even if you don't agree with this, I still think you shouldn't say fernwood .fernwood.mpk.ca.us in your pathalias input unless there are registered hosts with domain names under .fernwood.mpk.ca.us. -- John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net