vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) (08/23/88)
In article <70@volition.dec.com> I wrote:
# [...]
# Registering in the u.* files costs nothing; smail is available for free;
# [...]
In some e-mail which I want to answer publically, claris!skip (Brian Schipper)
said:
# But the documentation I received with smail reads:
#
# from "Read.Me" - Updated 9/15/87
#
# [...]
# Prerequisites:
# [...]
# A properly registered domain name for your organization, such
# as ATT.COM. (It is possible to run smail using a domain name
# inder .UUCP, but since this can't be officialy registered,
# it is appropriate only for testing.)
#
# I took this to mean that I shouldn't be running smail unless I was
# officially registered. Are you telling me that it's ok to do it
# as long as you're registered in the u.* files?
If you were a smoker, and someone told you you really ought to stop smoking,
you'd probably ignore them. Many people do this in response to the above
so-called "prerequisite" in the smail docs -- it's non-ideal, but in fact
there is still a great benefit to be had. (See my recent answer to "why
should I install smail?" for a partial list of Great Benefits.)
Smail is a product of the UUCP Project, which maintains the d.* and u.*
files in the UUCP map which is regularly posted to comp.mail.maps. They
will register your non-domainized name in u.* for free; they will register a
domain name which you've gotten from some other network (CSNet, ARPANet,
etc) in d.* for free; they will charge you something like $150 a year if
they have to handle the paperwork between you and the SRI NIC, who issues
domain names.
WHY SHOULD YOU GET A DOMAIN NAME, ANYWAY? There are two main reasons. First,
if you have lots of hosts, you only have to publish the connections of your
"gateway" machines (that is, the machines which talk to the rest of the net).
At Digital, this means that we publish "decwrl" as the "domain server" for the
"dec.com" domain, and anyone who wants to send mail via UUCP to any machine
whose name is "anything.dec.com" just sends it to decwrl, which is assumed
to be able to get the mail delivered. How it gets the mail delivered is its
business -- there's nothing in the maps to list any other DEC machine. This
is an example of "data hiding" and I hope I don't need to explain to this
audience why it's a good thing for all parties concerned (internal and
external, users and administrators).
The second main reason is so that people who want to send you mail from the
sometimes-called DARPA Internet can just send mail to "person@domain" and
let their name servers work out a way to get the mail sent to some Internet
host that can UUCP the message to your system. Directly-connected Internet
machines can send mail to eachother with what looks to them like a single
hop; there's a distributed name server database which maps between domain
and host names and their IP addresses; it also has room for other types of
information; of particular importance to us here is the "MX record." An MX
record says "mail to this domain should be sent to the Mail eXchanger for
that domain, which is such-and-so host over there." If you don't have an MX
record, then people on the directly-connected Internet who (usually) do not
run a pathalias-based mailer (which means they don't know about d.* and u.*)
cannot reach you except with oddball permutations like "vixie!paul@dec.com"
which get the mail sent to the bit bucket more often then not.
HOW CAN YOU GET A DOMAIN NAME? It boils down to: get someone to add you to
their name server database. You can do this in several ways:
1. send mail to registry@stargate.com and ask for a domain registration
information packet. This costs $150 a year to maintain; they will get
in touch with the SRI NIC to get your domain name registered and put
into the core name servers.
2. join CSNet. This costs many thousands of dollars per year. CSNet is run
by BBN, which is the contractor that maintains the physical plant of what
used to be called the ARPAnet. They have many interesting features, one
of which is a close relationship with the SRI NIC. Through CSNet, you can
also get (for a lot of money) a direct IP-level connection to the Internet.
3. NSFNet, BARRNet, and others. I don't know much about these.
4. UUNet. I believe that your domain name has to end in .uu.net for this,
but UUNet has a name server and they can add an MX for you which points to
them. You need to be a UUNet subscriber, which costs about $30 a month
plus UUCP connect time.
5. Join the .US domain. This costs nothing. It's not a "domain name", since
they want you to register each of your hosts with them except in special
situations. But it is - free - and it gets you an MX record. Send mail
to <Westine@ISI.Edu> for more details on this.
WHAT IF I DON'T GET A DOMAIN NAME? Then you'll be one of the thousands of
sites that outputs "From:" lines with "@myhost.UUCP" in it. Big deal.
Nobody will be able to reply to your mail unless they run pathalias and
smail (and unless certain sites stop rewriting <foo@bar.UUCP> into
<bar!foo@Sun.COM> on UUCP pass-though mail). That's about it.
You're probably running without a domain name now. If you start running
smail, you will be able to passively route outgoing mail and you'll stop
mucking up "From:" lines on pass-through UUCP traffic. These are clearly
benefits; if you don't get a domain name, then you've still taken a few
steps forward.
The u.* files in comp.mail.maps more-or-less make up the list of who should
send out "From:" lines with @myhost.UUCP in them. I'd like this to be
official, but that can never happen and I've accepted it (let's not start
a discussion on this point). Smail and u.* registration are both free;
they go together quite nicely.
.US registration is also free, and the UUCP Project will add you to their
d.* files as a "courtesy" if you've attained your domain name from another
source. Or maybe they'll add your domainized name to u.*, but that's
equivilent except to primadonna sites that only use the d.* files - there
are not many of these. Getting a .US name is preferrable to using .UUCP,
but the fact is, .UUCP works pretty well.
--
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 7013tgt@cbnews.ATT.COM (Tim Thompson) (08/23/88)
In article <71@volition.dec.com> vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes: > >Smail is a product of the UUCP Project, which maintains the d.* and u.* >files in the UUCP map which is regularly posted to comp.mail.maps. They >will register your non-domainized name in u.* for free; they will register a >domain name which you've gotten from some other network (CSNet, ARPANet, >etc) in d.* for free; they will charge you something like $150 a year if >they have to handle the paperwork between you and the SRI NIC, who issues >domain names. > Just a small correction: Anything that appears in the d.* files are by definition UUCP Zone members. The UUCP Zone consist of those domains registered through the UUCP Project. If you are hooked up with some other network and want your domain name in the maps, then it will go in the u.* files for nothing. Besides registering domains with SRI NIC, we do testing of UUCP Zone members periodically to ensure that forwarding from the Internet works correctly. If something is broke, it's our responsiblity to track it down and have it fixed. Other services which may be developed within the confines of the $150/year fee will be made available to UUCP Zone members only. For someone who doesn't fit nicely into the .US domain, the UUCP Zone is a cheap alternative to the other networks in obtaining an official domain name recognized by multiple networks. Tim Thompson Domain Coordinator, The UUCP Project
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (08/24/88)
> Just a small correction: Anything that appears in the d.* files are by > definition UUCP Zone members. The UUCP Zone consist of those domains > registered through the UUCP Project. Nonsense. There are hundreds of non-UUCP Zone members in the d.* files In fact, they probably outnumber the UUCP Zone members. The d.* files are a joke. They should never have been separated from the u.* files. I don't think ANYBODY understands what goes where. --rick
ahby@bungia.Bungia.MN.ORG (Shane P. McCarron) (08/24/88)
In article <935@cbnews.ATT.COM> tgt@cbnews.ATT.COM (Tim Thompson) writes: >Besides registering domains with SRI NIC, we do testing of UUCP Zone members >periodically to ensure that forwarding from the Internet works correctly. >If something is broke, it's our responsiblity to track it down and have >it fixed. Other services which may be developed within the confines of >the $150/year fee will be made available to UUCP Zone members only. >For someone who doesn't fit nicely into the .US domain, the UUCP Zone is >a cheap alternative to the other networks in obtaining an official >domain name recognized by multiple networks. I would just like to point out that this annual fee that the UUCP Project charges for their "services" is wholly outrageous. While they do handle registering your site with SRI-NIC, you can do that yourself through just about any site on the Internet. THERE IS NO FEE FOR REGISTERING WITH THE NIC! In addition, you can certainly find nameservers and forwarders yourself, although this will take some time and effort. While I feel that a ONE TIME NOMINAL fee would be totally reasonable, this business of charging $150 per year for something that is going to take less than an hour the first time, and the executing of some shell scripts in the future, is ridiculous! It is only slightly less of an outrage that the UUCP Project refuses to list properly registered domains in the d. files. Those files are for domains that are registered in the UUCP Zone, and I take that to mean ANY domain registered in that zone. People who want to take a little initiative and set up a domain on their own should not be discriminated against for their independence. Sure, it means that the UUCP Project has a little less liquid capitol to throw around, but spite isn't generally a good reason for anything. There was a meeting of the Map Coordinators at the San Francisco Usenix, and at that meeting Mel Pleasant and all of the coordinators there agreed in general to the placement of domains in the maps, and the concept of a one time fee. While I cannot speak for any of those people, I can relate the contents of that meeting. Mel agreed that $150 per year was outrageous and uncalled for. He agreed to take a recommendation back to Mark Horton that the UUCP Project charge a nominal fee of $50 or so as a one time charge for setting up a domain. This should more than cover whatever time and effort it takes to register a domain and find nameservers for it. Instead of making this policy change, I have seen a new affirmation of the previous policy. In addition, the coodinators agreed that administration of the d. files should be done at the regional level, instead of through a central authority. The group felt that the regional coordinators would have a better handle on what was required in their areas. Instead of this change, there is a now a Domain Coordinator. This person has to approve all new entries into the d. maps. I find this to be outrageous as well. Now it is true that Mel was speaking only for himself at this meeting. It is also true that I am not on the map coordinators mailing list, so I don't know what discussions went on in the interim. I have only seen some of those communications, and they have all disturbed me greatly. I understand that Mel was not speaking for the UUCP Project, but I do not understand how a set of group concensus decisions like the ones that were made in SF can be ignored so uniformly. I have moved off the topic a little here - let me slide back to the point. You can register a domain yourself - or you can find some kind soul to help you. Moreover, you can register your domain with a regional domain park, if there is one in your area. The .US domain is an alternative, but I feel the the centralized approach that they are taking is a disservice to the community, and an abuse of the MX record system - I don't recommend that approach. If you want to register a domain yourself, and do not know where to start, please feel free to contact me. I will be more than happy to help. -- Shane P. McCarron UUCP: ahby@bungia.mn.org Systems Analyst ATT: +1 612 224-9239
john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) (08/24/88)
In article <71@volition.dec.com>, vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes: [Lots of stuff I agree with. Also:] > 3. NSFNet, BARRNet, and others. I don't know much about these. Mostly research networks with specific funding sources. They set up IP networks with gateways to the rest of the Internet. You usually have to be a member of a research consortium to get on them. > 4. UUNet. I believe that your domain name has to end in .uu.net for this, Nope. My forwarder is uunet; they're happy to forward for any domain name you can get registered. I hear they might even deal with the NIC for you, but I'm not sure. As you say, you do need to be a uunet subscriber, which is a good deal. > 5. Join the .US domain. This costs nothing. It's not a "domain name", since > they want you to register each of your hosts with them except in special > situations. But it is - free - and it gets you an MX record. Well, it is a domain name; it's just not a domain name under which you can have other domain names. It gets you an MX record, but you have to arrange for a server yourself, just as in the UUCP Project case. Being a uunet subscriber makes this easy.... [Well, vix, we seem to be quoting each other all over the net this week. :-)] -- John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US SMART HOUSE L.P. uunet!jetson!john (old uucp) +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net (old internet)
tgt@cbnews.ATT.COM (Tim Thompson) (08/24/88)
In article <935@cbnews.ATT.COM> tgt@cbnews.ATT.COM (Tim Thompson) writes: >> Just a small correction: Anything that appears in the d.* files are by >> definition UUCP Zone members. The UUCP Zone consist of those domains >> registered through the UUCP Project. In article <44401@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: >Nonsense. There are hundreds of non-UUCP Zone members in the d.* files >In fact, they probably outnumber the UUCP Zone members. > Yes, at the current time this is true, but not for long. We had a meeting of the UUCP Project Coordinators (Mark Horton, Mel Pleasant, and myself). It was decided that domains appearing in the d.* files should by UUCP Zone member ONLY! Non-UUCP Zone domains should go into the u.* files. We are charging the UUCP Zone members, and as such, they need to be separated out from the run-of-the-mill map entries. Any and all services we provide, both now and in the future, will only be made available to UUCP Zone members, and as such, we need to keep them in their own separate set of map files. As the Domain Coordinator for the UUCP Project, I am in the midst of an audit of the d.* files. Any map entry in them that is not for a UUCP Zone member will be moved to the u.* files by the regional coordinators. We're not denying the publication of any NIC-recognized domain, but we DO want to make sure that the d.* files consists purely of UUCP Zone members. This will be happening over the next couple of months, and probably won't be finished until the end of the year. >The d.* files are a joke. They should never have been separated from the >u.* files. I don't think ANYBODY understands what goes where. > >--rick As to the d.* files being a joke, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I strongly differ with this opinion. Also, just because YOU don't understand what goes where doesn't mean the nobody else does. I happen to understand it perfectly, as does Mark and Mel, and most (if not all) of the regional coordinators. We are in the process of implementing the above; just because it doesn't exist that way now doesn't mean we don't understand. Tim Thompson
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (08/26/88)
I claim that no one knows what the d. files are for *including you* because every six months their purpose changes. What happened to the transition of moving all u. files into d. files? What happened to not allowing domained addressed in the u. files? All these were "policy" at one time. This months policy is to use them for your own INTERNAL database, yet inflict it upon the rest of us. The fundamental question is "Why should anyone else care if the sites are in the UUCP zone or not?" If its running right, then no one should be able to tell. If you need a list of your own internal sites, keep one. Don't do something assinine like partitioning the uucp maps into an arbitrary division for YOUR convenience. Its a nuisance for the rest of us. There are 400 uunet sites I need to keep track of. I didn't do this by creating a new set of map file prefixes. I keep a list of the sites I need to worry about and if I need to look at their map entry, I just look in the standard place. It's simple and it works. Everything you claim to need the d. files for can be done with the old u.files. --rick
karl@grebyn.com (Karl A. Nyberg) (08/26/88)
In article <946@cbnews.ATT.COM> tgt@cbnews.ATT.COM (Tim Thompson) writes: >It was decided that domains appearing in the d.* files should by UUCP >Zone member ONLY! Non-UUCP Zone domains should go into the u.* files. >We are charging the UUCP Zone members, and as such, they need to be >separated out from the run-of-the-mill map entries. Any and all >services we provide, both now and in the future, will only be made >available to UUCP Zone members, and as such, we need to keep them in >their own separate set of map files. I think that maybe there should be z.* for the UUCP ZONE, d.* for other registered domains, and u.* for unregistered sites. Whoever (and you listed them) it is that made this decision clearly left a lot to be desired (in my opinion). There doesn't appear to me to be any benefit to the splitting chosen. I REALLY resent being called run-of-the-mill. I can't understand why you should have to separate out the ones that you charge - maybe it's the only way to make them feel they are getting their money's worth? :-) -- Karl -- Karl A. Nyberg karl@grebyn.com, nyberg@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu Grebyn Corporation karl%grebyn.com@haven.umd.edu P. O. Box 1144 {decuac,haven}!grebyn!karl Vienna, VA 22180-1144 703-281-2194
ahby@bungia.Bungia.MN.ORG (Shane P. McCarron) (08/26/88)
In article <946@cbnews.ATT.COM> tgt@cbnews.ATT.COM (Tim Thompson) writes: >It was decided that domains appearing in the d.* files should by UUCP >Zone member ONLY! Non-UUCP Zone domains should go into the u.* files. >We are charging the UUCP Zone members, and as such, they need to be >separated out from the run-of-the-mill map entries. Any and all >services we provide, both now and in the future, will only be made >available to UUCP Zone members, and as such, we need to keep them in >their own separate set of map files. Wait a minute... Are you saying that you are keeping the d. and u. files separate for bookkeeping purposes only? When the d. files were originally introduced to the net, it was explained as a migration path. Eventually, it was said, all sites would be within UUCP Zone domains, and all domains would be in the d. files. D. stands for Domain, not Dumb enough to send money to people who do not earn it. If you are using the d. files as an administrative tool, so that you can keep track of who has paid you, I might suggest that you use something like a database or a spreadsheet. This is certainly more appropriate. >As the Domain Coordinator for the UUCP Project, I am in the midst of an >audit of the d.* files. Any map entry in them that is not for a UUCP >Zone member will be moved to the u.* files by the regional >coordinators. We're not denying the publication of any NIC-recognized >domain, but we DO want to make sure that the d.* files consists purely >of UUCP Zone members. This will be happening over the next couple of >months, and probably won't be finished until the end of the year. Again, I ask why? Why do you want only people who have paid you to be in the d. files? Who gives you the right to do this, anyway? Are you not just holding something that is really part of the greater "Usenet Community Trust?" Aren't these maps just comprised of information that citizens of the net have contributed for the good of the community? And if so, I want to know what makes you, Mark Horton, and Mel Pleasant, keepers of this information. Moreover, what gives you the right to charge people to publish information that they used to be able to publish for free?! I must be missing something... >Also, just because YOU don't understand what goes where doesn't mean >the nobody else does. I happen to understand it perfectly, as does Mark >and Mel, and most (if not all) of the regional coordinators. We are in >the process of implementing the above; just because it doesn't exist >that way now doesn't mean we don't understand. I think we all know that you three understand it, and it may be that many of the regional coordinators have been told some things, and that they understand what they have been told. I know that 2+2 equals 4, but no one ever told me why! I need to have some better reason than "this is a way for us to keep track of who has paid us." I don't keep my accounting data on every system in the free world - you shouldn't either! -- Shane P. McCarron UUCP: ahby@bungia.mn.org Systems Analyst ATT: +1 612 224-9239
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) (08/29/88)
As quoted from <71@volition.dec.com> by vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie): +--------------- | WHAT IF I DON'T GET A DOMAIN NAME? Then you'll be one of the thousands of | sites that outputs "From:" lines with "@myhost.UUCP" in it. Big deal. | Nobody will be able to reply to your mail unless they run pathalias and | smail (and unless certain sites stop rewriting <foo@bar.UUCP> into | <bar!foo@Sun.COM> on UUCP pass-though mail). That's about it. +--------------- I should note that the screwup was doubled when I recently replied to a message that came through sun -- not only did it blow up by misparsing the address that it had itself generated when it sent the original mail to me (CWRU's software is now working correctly, I've checked) but it also decided to reroute the return mail since the return hop was to "cwjcc". Bad move; it routed to "mandrill", but that machine is now "cwjcc" and CWRU's mail admin had to field the bounced mail and send it to me. (grrr -- sun is a direct neighbor to mandrill/cwjcc, why the h*ll haven't they changed their map entry yet? Ed Rynes has been warning neighbor sites for a month now.) I suspect the folks at sun just don't give a d*mn what their mail system does, as long as it works over their Internet connections. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, uunet!marque!ncoast!allbery DELPHI: ALLBERY For comp.sources.misc send mail to ncoast!sources-misc
werner@utastro.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (08/29/88)
let me say up-front, that it drives me batty, too, when e-mail replies bounce or get lost in black holes somewhere .... In article <12307@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: > As quoted from <71@volition.dec.com> by vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie): > +--------------- > | WHAT IF I DON'T GET A DOMAIN NAME? Then you'll be one of the thousands of > | sites that outputs "From:" lines with "@myhost.UUCP" in it. Big deal. > | Nobody will be able to reply to your mail unless they run pathalias and > | smail (and unless certain sites stop rewriting <foo@bar.UUCP> into > | <bar!foo@Sun.COM> on UUCP pass-though mail). That's about it. > +--------------- > I should note that the screwup was doubled when I recently replied to a > message that came through sun -- not only did it blow up by misparsing the > address that it had itself generated when it sent the original mail to me > (CWRU's software is now working correctly, I've checked) but it also decided > to reroute the return mail since the return hop was to "cwjcc". Bad move; > it routed to "mandrill", but that machine is now "cwjcc" and CWRU's mail > admin had to field the bounced mail and send it to me. (grrr -- sun is a > direct neighbor to mandrill/cwjcc, why the h*ll haven't they changed their > map entry yet? Ed Rynes has been warning neighbor sites for a month now.) > > I suspect the folks at sun just don't give a d*mn what their mail system > does, as long as it works over their Internet connections. I'm getting a bit tired of this bashing of SUN by Paul and others and I wonder if they care to present a "fair" picture of the problems (can you say "both sides of the coin"? I knew you could). My only claim to expertise with mailer-problems is as a user of (and wrestler with) e-mail for many years, so my words do not reflect expert knowledge of any particular mailers, but rather wisdom of old age based on "net-folklore" and years of mailer-abuse .... (-: So, for what it's worth, here are my 2 cents worth ... 1) SUN.COM does an incredibly valuable service to it's direct UUCP-neighbors (and their cousins several UUCP-hops away) by functioning as an gateway. no criticism should be voiced without, at least, throwing in a "thanks, SUN" also ... there is something like "good will" and a hard-working "postmaster" behind all this, you know, and the bean-counters at SUN may even frown on him spending any resources which benefits other companies, mainly, so he may be "sticking his neck out" and be putting in some of his own time to make gateway-services possible at all. BTW, I don't think SUN is a "official gateway" (what ever that might be defined as) guaranteeing service of any kind to others - and the fact that some aspects of a gateway seem to work should not be construed that there exists a right to demand that all aspects work flawlesly ... not to say, one can't ask the postmaster in a friendly tone, sending him a (perceived) trouble-report, with a "pretty, please, could it be made to work somehow, that replies which my mailer generates to messages which came routed through your machine, reach the intended recipient?" There are also DEC-machines with the connectivity to serve as gateway, but try to use them sometimes and see what response you get when you send a "friendly" trouble report to the postmaster there... "we are not a gateway" is a friendly version. 2) now to respond to the particular gripe of Paul, mainly that SUN.COM converts addresses of the format "user@site.UUCP" to "site!user@SUN.COM". it is my understanding that UUCP is *NOT* a domain, and that, therefore, and address "user@site.UUCP" is not correct for an Internet site, and that, therefore, it would be incorrect for SUN.COM to forward mail to me on RASCAL.ICS.UTEXAS.EDU (no UUCP-connections, strictly Internet) as coming from "user@site.UUCP" and that changing this to "site!user@SUN.COM" is the correct thing to do. The problem is that "site" should not send out addresses in domain-notation, if it is not a site in a valid domain! (at least from the Internet RFC-882 point of view). So, when RASCAL gets "gatewayed" mail from SUN.COM, I'd have a *RIGHT* to complain if the return-address was not in the form that SUN provides... so what is SUN to do? try to figure out a valid return-bang-path to "site" on the fly, when it forwards the message to RASCAL? well, that would be nice, and might even be possible, but I don't know anyone that does it! Alternatives? SUN might send it as "user%site.uucp@sun.com", which even might work as a reply-address, but then, I think I have seen that even RASCAL has a sendmail.cf file which converts every address "user@site.uucp" into "site!user" .... so, one can probably disagree about that. 3) From a practical point of view, it is, of course, an incredible nuisance to have to worry about the validity of a reply-address which my mailer generates but I've learned to live with mail bouncing at various sites and then hand-knitting a path that works and trying it again. I only wished all sites would bounce things back to me as fast as SUN.COM... (-: Sure it would be nice, if every UUCP-mailer could grock an address like "site!user", even if "site is not an immediate neighbor, but it would require a query to an "up-to-date" UUCP-sites database, or the smarts to forward the message to a site that has one for resolving the address.. Maybe you get the drift, Paul and Brandon: you are getting something for free here from SUN and others, so when you report some "perceived" problem, why bash on people/sites in public the way you do? why not send a private e-mail message to the postmaster of the site you perceive as having a problem and "ask IF" the symptoms you have noticed MIGHT indicate a problem they did not know about yet or if they could clarify to you what you might be doing wrong that causes the problem .... it's all in the tone of voice, selection of the words, phrasing of the sentence, that generates the (what we called "good vibes" in the '60s) the good will towards others which has brought UUCP-mail into being and which is needed to keep it going, to get problems fixed, to get things improved. Otherwise, you can use a pay-as-you-go service, where you PAY for the right to yell at someone for not providing the service to which (you think) you bought a right to expect... I can forgive anyone words spoken in frustration and anger, but I will ignore anyone who cannot be calmed down enough to have a friendly discussion with. I am convinced that both Paul and Brandon are the type of people that would put "their money where their mouth is" and do the work themselves to fix whatever might need fixing to make the (perceived) problem at SUN go away; but, alas, that is not possible, so how about calming down and finding a way to make peace with this imperfect world? how about an effort to put some more "good vibes" into your posted articles and a little less "foam from the mouth"? that might even move someone from SUN to post their view of the problem .... (-: Cheers, ---Werner PS: ....OF COURSE, you can ignore my articles but "at your own risk" ...(-: MAIL flames to me, POST rational follow-ups to the group, please. -- -------------------->PREFERED-RETURN-ADDRESS-FOLLOWS<--------------------- (INTERNET) werner%rascal.ics.utexas.edu@cs.utexas.edu (DIRECT) werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Internet: 128.83.144.1) (UUCP) ...{backbone-sites}!cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!werner
rynes@isis.CWRU.Edu (Edward M. Rynes Esq.) (08/29/88)
In article <12307@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >(CWRU's software is now working correctly, I've checked) Thank's, it only took me two years to get it right. :-) >to reroute the return mail since the return hop was to "cwjcc". Bad move; >it routed to "mandrill", but that machine is now "cwjcc" and CWRU's mail >admin had to field the bounced mail and send it to me. (grrr -- sun is a >direct neighbor to mandrill/cwjcc, why the h*ll haven't they changed their >map entry yet? Ed Rynes has been warning neighbor sites for a month now.) >++Brandon Sorry, but this is my fault. I haven't changed my map entry yet. (It's getting warm in here :-) Also, Sun has dropped its UUCP connection to CWRU (we are both on the InterNet) so we are no longer neighbors (in the UUCP sense) And one more thing, Mandrill is still up and running (for three more days) so routing the mail through Mandrill should have worked. (Mandrill probably trashed it. There's a reason why we're replacing it;-) P.S. Why hasn't ncoast switched over to cwjcc yet??? -- Edward M. Rynes <rynes@isis.CWRU.Edu> "I stepped up on the platform. Jennings Computing Center The man gave me the news. Case Western Reserve University He said, `You must be joking son! Cleveland, OH 44106 (216) 368-2982 Where did you get those shoes?'"
mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) (08/30/88)
The UUCP Project provides a number of public services. These services include the u.* files in the UUCP map and the smail software. We are run by a group of volunteers, in order to keep our costs down to the bare minimum. However, we do have expenses, and we are unable to pay for these out of our personal pockets. In order to have representation at necessary meetings, pay for our computer and phone bills, and other misc expenses, we offered a new service: registration of ARPA domains for UUCP based organizations. We set up the UUCP Zone as a network of UUCP organizations with domains, and set membership dues at $150/year per organization. (This is a tiny amount, less than $.50/day. By comparison, CSNET membership dues range from $5000/year to $30,000/year, and BITNET and ARPANET cost even more.) We were concerned that some small organizations, such as one-person consulting companies, might not be able to afford $150/year, so we set up parks to allow an economy of scale at $50/year, or less, for 3rd level domains. We've found that there isn't much interest in parks, people are either unwilling to pay anything at all or they don't see any difference between $150/year and smaller amounts. We've had several tiny organizations sign up at the $150/year rate for a 2nd level domain. We also allow sites that already have their domains through someone else, such as CSNET, to join the UUCP Zone for $50/year. There are also some complementary memberships, for example, ARPANET forwarders have the option of joining for free, although some prefer to pay dues anyway to show their support. Our policy for d.* files has always been that it consists of UUCP Zone members. The u.* files were always for uucp nodename connections. Recently, due to public request, we decided to allow dotted domain names in u.* files for organizations that have not joined the UUCP Zone. This costs us money, since otherwise some of these folks might join the UUCP Zone at the $50 rate, but we judged that connectivity and service were more important. Now I'm seeing a backlash we never anticipated: people are telling us that we're evil commercial moneygrubbers when we're now offering a free service that was never there before! Our budget is very small, about $12K/year. We get away with these tiny figures by using volunteers. I've never received any salary from the UUCP Project, neither has anyone else. Even so, we're hurting for cash. We recently had the disk die on stargate, our UNIX computer and email contact point, and were unable to afford AT&T's rates to fix it. Fortuntely, Convergent Technologies has donated another UNIX PC as a backup, and it's back up and running with minimal interruption of service. The hassles of keeping the project going and the machine running through a divorce, 4 involuntary moves, moving phone lines, downtime, and so on are not exactly my idea of a vacation in Hawaii. Frankly, I wouldn't mind having more time to spend with my children. Frankly, I'm deeply hurt by all the UUCP Project bashing going on in this newsgroup. We are NOT a commercial enterprise. We'd be a nonprofit organization if we had the time and money to incorporate. We're still working toward that goal. We were founded because there was no other way to get this service. I still think we're operating on a shoestring, and anybody who does it for less will have to get a subsidy from somebody, possibly themselves. The US domain, for example, appears to be subsidized by DARPA and SRI. If they are willing to do it, I say more power to them. I can't speak for Mel, Tim, or any of the other UUCP Project volunteers, but to anyone who feels they can run the UUCP Zone or some similar organization for less than our rates, perhaps they should stand up and take on the task. I am not here because I want money (I'm not getting any) or power, or fame. I'm here to ensure that the community can send email to itself. Mark Horton Managing Director, the UUCP Project
wisner@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Bill Wisner) (08/30/88)
Werner Uhrig, apparently a newcomer to this particular discussion, says: >2) now to respond to the particular gripe of Paul, mainly that SUN.COM > converts addresses of the format "user@site.UUCP" to "site!user@SUN.COM". I have a feeling that they do things like site!user@Sun.COM if the mail is being sent to an Internet site. All the mail I've ever seen come through Sun has had the Frmom: line converted into a pure bang path. Here's why that's Wrong: > it is my understanding that UUCP is *NOT* a domain, and that, therefore, > and address "user@site.UUCP" is not correct for an Internet site, and that, > therefore, it would be incorrect for SUN.COM to forward mail to me on > RASCAL.ICS.UTEXAS.EDU (no UUCP-connections, strictly Internet) as coming > from "user@site.UUCP" and that changing this to "site!user@SUN.COM" is > the correct thing to do. The problem is that "site" should not send > out addresses in domain-notation, if it is not a site in a valid domain! > (at least from the Internet RFC-882 point of view). I'm IN a valid domain!! Yet, without fail, Sun will merrily butcher my From: lines if I should decide to route something through them. No! No! >Maybe you get the drift, Paul and Brandon: you are getting something for >free here from SUN and others, so when you report some "perceived" problem, >why bash on people/sites in public the way you do? To spread the word. See, there's this mutual trust thing. All sites on the UUCP net trust all the other sites to NOT do nasty things to mail that's passing through. When a major player like Sun breaks this trust, some people will want to tell everyone else about it. Me, I just take pains to avoid Sun. It makes me happy since I don't wind up with broken headers and it makes them happy since they don't have to field my traffic. I'm quite certain, though, that my mailer won't butcher the headers of messages from Sun. I wonder if they appreciate that.
wisner@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Bill Wisner) (08/30/88)
In article <998@cbnews.ATT.COM> mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) writes: >This costs us money, since otherwise some of >these folks might join the UUCP Zone at the $50 rate, but we judged >that connectivity and service were more important. No, it doesn't cost you any more money than normal listings do. I'm personally responsible for getting three sites (so far; more are coming) into the US domain. All three are sites that already had map entries and that would NOT have payed $150 to enter the UUCP Zone. I don't say you're evil commercial moneygrubbers. Surely, you ARE providing a service. But don't even try to pretend that there aren't alternatives. Entering the US domain is just a bit less painless than utilizing the UUCP Project, and the truly masochistic can deal directly with the NIC. You are simply one of a number of options. >The US domain, for >example, appears to be subsidized by DARPA and SRI. If they are >willing to do it, I say more power to them. Nearly all of the US domain administration is performed by ONE individual at ISI. She's not getting paid for her time, either. All that DARPA and SRI did was approve the creation of the domain. If the US domain is in any way subsidized, it's by ISI. They provide the nameservers. Somehow I doubt that that counts.
ebauman@uceng.UC.EDU (evan bauman) (08/30/88)
In article <5349@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, wisner@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Bill Wisner) writes: > In article <998@cbnews.ATT.COM> mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) writes: > >This costs us money, since otherwise some of > >these folks might join the UUCP Zone at the $50 rate, but we judged > >that connectivity and service were more important. > > No, it doesn't cost you any more money than normal listings do. > I'm personally responsible for getting three sites (so far; more are > coming) into the US domain. All three are sites that already had map > entries and that would NOT have payed $150 to enter the UUCP Zone. > > I don't say you're evil commercial moneygrubbers. Surely, you ARE > providing a service. But don't even try to pretend that there aren't > alternatives. Entering the US domain is just a bit less painless than > utilizing the UUCP Project, and the truly masochistic can deal directly > with the NIC. You are simply one of a number of options. > > >The US domain, for > >example, appears to be subsidized by DARPA and SRI. If they are > >willing to do it, I say more power to them. > > Nearly all of the US domain administration is performed by ONE individual > at ISI. She's not getting paid for her time, either. All that DARPA and > SRI did was approve the creation of the domain. If the US domain is in > any way subsidized, it's by ISI. They provide the nameservers. Somehow > I doubt that that counts. Just wanted to contribute my dealings with the UUCP maps. Notre Dame's computers are listed in the u* maps. At least, the Unix boxes that handle mail with uniques names are listed. I sent in all the entries to Mel at Rutgers. Notre Dame also has an entry in d* that lists all the uucp gateways to our sub-domains. I also sent in that one. We are an internet site now, but previously had the u* listings only. In no case have we ever exchanged documents/money with the UUCP Project. We may be wrong/unethical/whatever but I have the feeling that we are not alone. Incidentally, I wanted to pass on my sincere thanks to Mel and his staff at Rutgers that maintain the maps. You guys do more than your share. Thanks. Evan Bauman Dep't of Chem. Eng. Univ. of Notre Dame (posting from U. Cin.) evan@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu
ahby@com2sun.C2S.MN.ORG (15Shane P. McCarron) (08/31/88)
Before we start this, let me say that I really do applaud the CONCEPT behind the UUCP Project. UUCP Zone sites do need to become real Internet citizens in some way, and sites that don't think this is a priority still need to have some way of being known to the rest of the world. The UUCP Project satisfies these goals, but not in a way that I consider to be maximally beneficial. Now... We come here not to bury the UUCP Project, but to criticize it, reform it, and if necessary, destroy it utterly: In article <998@cbnews.ATT.COM> mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) writes: >The UUCP Project provides a number of public services. These services >include the u.* files in the UUCP map and the smail software. The u. files are administered not by the UUCP Project, but by a group of volunteers loosely coordinated by the UUCP Project. This is an important point. These volunteers do not necessarily give a damn about the policies set down by the Project, although they are ostensibly a part of it. This is considerably different than the point below - what Mark should have said was "The UUCP Project coordinators are volunteers" >We are >run by a group of volunteers, in order to keep our costs down to the >bare minimum. The minimum cost for a project like this should be zero. You are storing the maps at Rutgers, and I doubt that they are charging you for storage or connect time. Your mail connection point, stargate, is a 3B1 (as mentioned below), and does consume some resources. My 3B1 is costing me $25 per month in electricity, and another $50 per month in phone lines. However, it would cost me much of this regardless of whether it was the local hub for the MN.ORG domain park or not (see below). >In order to have representation >at necessary meetings, pay for our computer and phone bills, and other >misc expenses, Wait a second... You are using this money to get to meetings? What kind of meetings? If you mean Usenix, your organizations (AT&T, Rutgers?) usually pay for this kind of thing, don't they? But I digress... >we offered a new service: registration of ARPA domains >for UUCP based organizations. Whoa! Wait again! You offered this registration service SOLELY so that you could cover your expenses? Well, I guess I can see why you wouldn't want to cut the fees. Not very altruistic or flattering, Mark. >We set up the UUCP Zone as a network of >UUCP organizations with domains, and set membership dues at $150/year >per organization. As a fully arbitrary figure. Also, it wasn't called dues, but rather a registration fee. Moreover, while it was understood that this money was going to be an annual fee, it was implied that it barely covered the expenses of setting up and maintaining the domain from the UUCP Project perspective. Having now set up and maintained about 40 domains myself, I reject this as ludicrous. >We were >concerned that some small organizations, such as one-person consulting >companies, might not be able to afford $150/year, so we set up parks to >allow an economy of scale at $50/year, or less, for 3rd level domains. Try again Mark. I was concerned, bitched to the group, and was allowed to establish the first park. You asked me to set the fees, suggested stronly that it be high enough so that you could get $25 per subdomain, and let me run with it. (I do thank you for helping me out, and allowing me to help debug your software, but that is another topic.) I set the dues for this park at $20, and sent the UUCP Project $250 to cover our initial registration fee and 10 subdomains. >We've found that there isn't much interest in parks, people are either >unwilling to pay anything at all or they don't see any difference >between $150/year and smaller amounts. I know that this is just a personal nit, but you have never encouraged ANYONE to set up a park. As far as I know there is only one running successfully - mine. There are 40 members (that's $2000 in UUCP Project Dollars :-). I am now charging these sites $25 per year for unlimited long distance and local electronic mail, a domain name, source archives, automatic pathalias database generation, mail routing, and several other "services". Certainly more than the UUCP Project can say that it provides for its $150. This is all done via volunteer labor, and the money goes to (maybe) cover the long distance phone bills I incur. I would maintain that there is a lot of interest in parks. They are what was intended by the MX system in the first place. No one wanted every measley PC running UUPC to get an MX record! That is an abuse of the nameservers, and a disservice to the community. Economy of scale (to use one of your terms) dictates that parks be encouraged over singular domains. The efficiency of having a regional entry and exit point for communications outweighs the disadvantage of waiting an additional 10 minutes for your mail. (If anyone out there is interested in establishing a regional domain park, please drop me a line. I have a 10 page paper describing the entire system, as well as software to make it all work smoothly.) >We've had several tiny >organizations sign up at the $150/year rate for a 2nd level domain. Only because they didn't know better. I have talked to some of these small sites, and they were pretty surprised to find that they could have done it all themselves, for free. >We also allow sites that already have their domains through someone >else, such as CSNET, to join the UUCP Zone for $50/year. You guys are really too much. What do you mean, allow?! You are providing a service to the community, and part of that service is keeping the community informed about all the sites which are reachable via UUCP. You should be begging these people to tell you about them, not charging them for absolutely no services whatsoever! This is so... so... I can't even think of a term. I am astounded that anyone could be so pompous as to make this statement. And I am the most pompous person I have ever met. >There are >also some complementary memberships, for example, ARPANET forwarders >have the option of joining for free, although some prefer to pay dues >anyway to show their support. Here now. Here is a service! I knew I could find one! Allowing gateway points to be registered in the maps. Good work, guys. I hope that you are pursuing all of these feverishly. >Our policy for d.* files has always been >that it consists of UUCP Zone members. The u.* files were always for >uucp nodename connections. BZZZZZZZ!!! Wrong Mark - would you like to try for Double Jeopardy, where the prizes can really add up? The original policy called for the d. files to contain domains, and the u. files to contain uucp sites that do not have a registered domain. It never even occured to you people that anyone would not want to shell out $150 every year for somehting that they could achieve themselves. Parks are yet another example. The original letters I have from you (I hope I still have them) indicate that we (the park) owe the UUCP Project for every additional line we generate of pathalias output after the first three. This is insane! Who are you people to charge us for storage on every machine in the world?! Are you reimbursing these people? Of course not. Is the park providing these people with a service by listing all of the gateway sites within it? Of course it is. >Recently, due to public request, we decided >to allow dotted domain names in u.* files for organizations that have >not joined the UUCP Zone. This costs us money, since otherwise some of >these folks might join the UUCP Zone at the $50 rate, but we judged >that connectivity and service were more important. Gosh, what a bunch of great guys you are. I'm sorry I didn't see it sooner. You are going to allow us to list our information in a PUBLIC DATABASE THAT BELONGS TO THE COMMUNITY? Who the hell do you people think you are? I mean really! We take a little initiative, try to improve out connectivity and not bother anyone about it, send our map update to our regional coordinator, and viola! We are declared anathema by the UUCP gods, and sentenced to the purgatory of the u. files. >Now I'm seeing a >backlash we never anticipated: people are telling us that we're evil >commercial moneygrubbers when we're now offering a free service that >was never there before! Give me a break! Was never there before? It was always there. Let's not quibble over the blatantly obvious - the merely obvious will do just fine. True, some have called you evil money grubbers, and even a commericial enterprise. I haven't, but I would have, had I thought of it first. :-) >Our budget is very small, about $12K/year. We get away with these tiny >figures by using volunteers. Let's stress the USING aspect of this. These volunteers are maintaining the maps, checking them for accuracy, contacting site administrators to resolve conflicts, and posting the updated maps to rutgers for disctibution - themselves - for free! What are you doing to help them? Oh sure, you offer to reimburse them for phone time if they incur any costs. Mostly that is their employer's phone time, and that's free. The $1.50 in phone bills is not really going to bother anyone. I'm not impressed, guys. >I've never received any salary from the >UUCP Project, neither has anyone else. Even so, we're hurting for >cash. We recently had the disk die on stargate, our UNIX computer and >email contact point, and were unable to afford AT&T's rates to fix it. >The hassles of keeping the project going and the machine >running through a divorce, 4 involuntary moves, moving phone lines, >downtime, and so on are not exactly my idea of a vacation in Hawaii. >Frankly, I wouldn't mind having more time to spend with my children. Please Mark - I feel for you, and I am sorry that you had such a difficult marriage/divorce. Everyone has troubles, but yours are more severe than mine have ever been. However, I don't see this as a reason to charge people money. That is the subject here, although I would be more than happy to discuss the other off line. Back to that - your box died. Yeah? Well, that was your box - your responsibility. If my domain park hub died, I wouldn't feel right asking each member for an additional $35 to help me bring it back up. This is not proper use of UUCP Project funds, in my opinion. >We are NOT a commercial enterprise. We'd be a >nonprofit organization if we had the time and money to incorporate. >We're still working toward that goal. Yeah, I understand. That $90 and twenty minutes is such a bitch. >We were founded because there >was no other way to get this service. BZZZZZZ!!! Blew the Double Jeopardy too! There has always been a way to establish this service. You want to really serve the community? Tell everyone how to set it up themselves. Document the steps and post it. Provide the OPTION of having people contact you and set up their domain through you for a nominal, one time fee. This will be much better received than your current system. Have you ever noticed that you didn't get the 5000 applicants you expected? Have you seen the traffic in this group where people say "Why do I have to register and pay these people so I can run smail?" You misled people, you confused people, and now you are paying for it. Straighten up and take it like a man. >I still think we're operating on >a shoestring, and anybody who does it for less will have to get a >subsidy from somebody, possibly themselves. Or have to do it right. More about that later. >I can't speak for Mel, Tim, or any of the other UUCP Project >volunteers, but to anyone who feels they can run the UUCP Zone or some >similar organization for less than our rates, perhaps they should stand >up and take on the task. Hmmm... Maybe some big site out there would be willing to take this on? Some site that is not controlled by a major corporation, that isn't subject to politics? Some site that is connected to everyone, or will be eventually? Someone like... say... uunet? Rick? >I am not here because I want money (I'm not >getting any) or power, or fame. I'm here to ensure that the community >can send email to itself. Well... I am certainly interested in the communities ability to send email, but I'm not goint to kid anyone. I am in this for the fame and the power. That is the only reason to do something when you're not getting paid for it. Sure, there's altruism, but that is usually just a front - it looks good on paper, but having practically everyone in the industry know your name, know that you are wonderful, and feel like you have done something for them can't be all bad. -- Shane P. McCarron ATT: +1 612 452-9522 Project Manager UUCP: ahby@c2s.mn.org
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (08/31/88)
In article <998@cbnews.ATT.COM> mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) writes: >The UUCP Project provides a number of public services. These services >include the u.* files in the UUCP map and the smail software. We are >run by a group of volunteers, in order to keep our costs down to the >bare minimum. Mark, there are a variety of public services on the net. You call the u.* files and the smail software public services. I agree, they are, and I thank you for providing them. However, there are many public services on the net: the time of the moderators; the news software; tools no one would want to do without, such as rn, patch, compress, etc. I am also thankful for those services. But no one bills me for them. You provided us with a very valuable one-time service; you filed a domain registration for us and worked to see that it got set up properly. For this service, it was appropriate for you to charge a fee, and easy for me to justify it. However, you do not provide significant continuing services; map updates are for the most part done by volunteers whose expenses are not covered by your funds. I cannot justify paying you a continuing fee to my accounting people, and neither can anyone else who is honest with their accounting people. > However, we do have expenses, and we are unable to pay >for these out of our personal pockets. In order to have representation >at necessary meetings, pay for our computer and phone bills, and other >misc expenses, we offered a new service: registration of ARPA domains >for UUCP based organizations. It is neither appropriate nor necessary for the members of the UUCP Zone to pay for your computer and phone bill, or for there even to be a stargate.com machine. Every machine that runs a router and has a complete database has the full set of maps on line. And why is it called "stargate"? The Stargate project, while technically interesting and well-intentioned, just isn't economically feasible when compared to something like UUNET. I also don't see what the value was for us to pay so Lauren Weinstein could go to Usenix. There are many groups of volunteers on the net: people providing software, Internet gateways, public access machines, etc. Only one group expects to have their way paid to go to Usenix. > We set up the UUCP Zone as a network of >UUCP organizations with domains, and set membership dues at $150/year >per organization. (This is a tiny amount, less than $.50/day. By >comparison, CSNET membership dues range from $5000/year to >$30,000/year, and BITNET and ARPANET cost even more.) This is an irrelevant comparison. You do not provide a network; you take care of paperwork, and that's all you do. It's up to individual domain registrants to find an Internet forwarder; that Internet forwarder, not the UUCP Project, provides connectivity to the Internet. It's up to individual sites to line up UUCP neighbors and pay their phone bills. When seismo went away, you people advised me to switch to uunet; you did not inform me that uunet could provide all the services you provide at no additional cost. You just went ahead and billed us. >We've found that there isn't much interest in parks, people are either >unwilling to pay anything at all or they don't see any difference >between $150/year and smaller amounts. We've had several tiny >organizations sign up at the $150/year rate for a 2nd level domain. Mark, you apparently don't understand how accounting departments work in many organizations. I have to justify every payment I request our company to make. There would be no difference between a $150/year and a $50/year bill. And you don't do anything to help people set up domain parks; you just say that if someone DID figure out all the necessary stuff to set one up, you'd add information DESCRIBING the setup for $50/year. Gag. Of course no one wants to do this. To get a PO for ANY amount of money involves hassle and red tape. There isn't a significant amount of difference between $150 and $50/year except for individual consultants. >Now I'm seeing a >backlash we never anticipated: people are telling us that we're evil >commercial moneygrubbers when we're now offering a free service that >was never there before! It's because your fee structure is unjustified, and your policies are actually discouraging domainization. I have no objection to a fee for filing a domain registration. But I don't see why I should pay to get your personal computer fixed (that's what stargate is, in any case). Whether you seek a profit or not, if you're charging fees and providing services, you're a business. Customers don't care about your expenses, your divorce, or your children. They only care about whether the fees are justified for the services rendered. If they aren't, you'll lose them. >Frankly, I wouldn't mind having more time to spend with my children. Then do so. No one is indispensible as a volunteer. >I am not here because I want money (I'm not >getting any) or power, or fame. I'm here to ensure that the community >can send email to itself. If this is REALLY true, then you will not remove map entries that provide significant connectivity to the net based on whether someone has paid you or not. -- - 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
lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (09/01/88)
Shane and all, It was my impression that the UUCP Zone intended to offer additional services to its customers in the near term, and this was what the $150.00 / year was to go for. Perhaps Mark or Tim might comment on such possibilities. Eliot -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
wisner@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Bill Wisner) (09/01/88)
>I would maintain that there is a lot of interest in parks. They are >what was intended by the MX system in the first place. No one wanted >every measley PC running UUPC to get an MX record! That is an abuse >of the nameservers, and a disservice to the community. Er, how's that? The only site that could possibly be inconvenienced by a lot of MX records is the site where the nameserver database is stored. Each site in a domain may have a unique entry, or maybe there's a wildcard record. In either case, a query will use exactly the same amount of network bandwidth. In fact, far from being an abuse of nameservers, having a unique record for every site in a domain results in greater performance. Internet mailers can tell instantly whether a site is valid (the server will return an "unknown" response), rather than possibly waiting a day or two to get an error message from the "hub" of a domain.
ahby@bungia.Bungia.MN.ORG (Shane P. McCarron) (09/01/88)
In article <5372@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> wisner@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Bill Wisner) writes: >>I would maintain that there is a lot of interest in parks. They are >>what was intended by the MX system in the first place. No one wanted >>every measley PC running UUPC to get an MX record! That is an abuse >>of the nameservers, and a disservice to the community. > >Er, how's that? The only site that could possibly be inconvenienced by >a lot of MX records is the site where the nameserver database is stored. >Each site in a domain may have a unique entry, or maybe there's a >wildcard record. In either case, a query will use exactly the same amount >of network bandwidth. Well, you're right. Actually, that is what I was referring to. There should be several nameservers for any one site, so there would be several machines with thousands of MX records. Moreover, these are difficult to maintain; if there is an MX for every site, then every time you add a machine on your LAN you have to send a message to some volunteer coordinator so they can add an MX to a bunch of machines around the network. This is NOT what was intended. To quote some material just recently provided me by Rick Adams: RFC 1033 DOMAIN OPERATIONS GUIDE November 1987 An entire domain of hosts not connected to the Internet may want their mail to go through a mail gateway that knows how to deliver mail to them. If they would like mail addressed to any host in the domain FOO.COM to go through the mail gateway they might use: FOO.COM. MX 10 RELAY.CS.NET. *.FOO.COM. MX 20 RELAY.CS.NET. RFC 974 January 1986 Mail Routing and the Domain System Minor Special Issues There are a couple of special issues left out of the preceding section because they complicated the discussion. They are treated here in no particular order. Wildcard names, those containing the character '*' in them, may be used for mail routing. There are likely to be servers on the network which simply state that any mail to a domain is to be routed through a relay. For example, at the time that this RFC is being written, all mail to hosts in the domain IL is routed through RELAY.CS.NET. This is done by creating a wildcard RR, which states that *.IL has an MX of RELAY.CS.NET. >In fact, far from being an abuse of nameservers, having a unique record >for every site in a domain results in greater performance. Internet mailers >can tell instantly whether a site is valid (the server will return an >"unknown" response), rather than possibly waiting a day or two to get >an error message from the "hub" of a domain. It MAY result in greater mail reliability, but certainly not greater performance. I maintain that it will reduce reliability, because if I add a new node to my network and send mail to you from it before the MX records are updated you cannot respond to me. This is the aspect that I call a disservice to the community. There is no way that this volunteer coordinator I speak of could handle the load of new nodes that must be being added to LANs all over the world every day. Also, it is unlikely that you are going to wait a day or two for the unknown host message to be returned. It should be more like a few hours. I realize that this is a terrible hardship, but you are already waiting several hours for the material to get its butt off of you node and out into the Internet. The citizens of the UUCP Zone have this problem every day - why can't the citizens of fully connected networks put up with it as well? -- Shane P. McCarron UUCP: ahby@bungia.mn.org Systems Analyst ATT: +1 612 224-9239
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (09/02/88)
ahby@bungia.bungia.mn.org writes:
It MAY result in greater mail reliability, but certainly not greater
performance. I maintain that it will reduce reliability, because
if I add a new node to my network and send mail to you from it before
the MX records are updated you cannot respond to me.
If your new node is named SOME-NEW-HOST.FOO.COM, and the nameserver
providing service for FOO.COM contains an MX record such as you had as
an example previously, e.g.,
*.FOO.COM IN MX 10 RELAY.CS.NET
then it will work just fine, actually. You can add a node, boot it,
and 30 seconds later send out mail from it which is immediately
perfectly reply-able by anyone anywhere.
--Karlrick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams) (09/05/88)
> I can't speak for Mel, Tim, or any of the other UUCP Project > volunteers, but to anyone who feels they can run the UUCP Zone or some > similar organization for less than our rates, perhaps they should stand > up and take on the task. OK. UUNET will provide all of the necessary computer and telephone resources necessary to maintain the UUCP map. I don't see any need for a travel budget, so I won't fund that. Given the existing volunteer labor, that brings the net cost to maintaining the maps to virtually zero. In addition, UUNET will register a domain and provide a name server for anyone willing to pay a one time fee of $35. (Of course UUNET subscribers will not have to pay any additional fee). You will still need to find your own forwarder. If you are connected to a machine directly connected to uunet AND THAT MACHINE CONSENTS, uunet will also act as your forwarder, via that directly connected machine. --rick