csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (06/02/88)
I'd like to make a plea with all sites to stop listing Internet connections on their UUCP Maps. The problem is that it is getting increasingly difficult for me to generate meaningful pathalias output. I can twiddle the numbers to make the paths come out right, but this is becoming tedious. In this day of domains and smail, there is simply no good reason for any site to list their Internet connections on the UUCP Maps; domains handle the routing. Isn't this the whole reason domains were created, to simplify the maps? The worst "offenders" for us are Rutgers and Ames; I have discussed this with their respective administrations and they felt they wanted the map entries kept as is. But why? I mean, there is this nice bunch of lines in D.top: rutgers .uucp rutgers .arpa, .com, .gov, .mil, .edu, .org, .net, .us rutgers .de, .no, .nz rutgers .bitnet That tells me everything I need to know about rutgers connections. Given this, why does any site need to show explicit names in their list of links? Comments? Mel? <csg>
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (06/02/88)
Carl, I have read through this 4 or 5 times and still cannot figure out exactly what you are complaining about. What do you mean by "Internet connections"? In article <25550@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: >... The problem is that it is getting increasingly difficult for >me to generate meaningful pathalias output. I can twiddle the numbers to make >the paths come out right, but this is becoming tedious. eh? why do you need to twiddle anything? Maybe if you give an example of what sorts of things you're having troubles with? >In this day of domains >and smail, there is simply no good reason for any site to list their Internet >connections on the UUCP Maps; domains handle the routing. Isn't this the whole >reason domains were created, to simplify the maps? Well. That's not the real reason that domains were created, but it *was* the reason we push domains for the uucp world so I'll let it stand as is. >The worst "offenders" for us are Rutgers and Ames; I have discussed this with >their respective administrations and they felt they wanted the map entries >kept as is. But why? Well, I was curious and took a quick look in the map to see what was going on. Do you perhaps mean the section of stuff listed as "TCP/IP" connections? What's your problems with that? If all those connections are anything like the one they have with us it's done with real UUCP over TCP connections across the internet. Regardless of how it's done I'm sure it'd be invisible to you so what's the problem? >I mean, there is this nice bunch of lines in D.top: > > rutgers .uucp > rutgers .arpa, .com, .gov, .mil, .edu, .org, .net, .us > rutgers .de, .no, .nz > rutgers .bitnet > >That tells me everything I need to know about rutgers connections. Given this, >why does any site need to show explicit names in their list of links? how? If you take away all of the explicit names then how are we supposed to generate routes within the net? If I understand what you're suggesting correctly the only thing in the site entry would be the comment section. Now, I do have a problem with rutgers' entries in general. In u.usa.nj.1 they have a number of entries for tiny machines (3b2's). They don't need to do this -- they can easily cause the mail systems on those machines to generate domain type addresses EVEN if the machines are uucp only. smail is wonderful software and does good things. You don't even have to have much of a database on the local machine -- my home machine has ONE entry, the one giving the route to "ukma" the local smart-host. >Comments? Mel? > ><csg> -- <---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <david@ms.uky.edu> <---- s.k.a.: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- <---- Goodbye RAH.
nowicki%rose@Sun.COM (Bill Nowicki) (06/03/88)
In article <300@ncar.ucar.edu>, woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes: > > ... Not everybody in > the world is running MX-compatible mailers yet. To get one here, I had > to search high and low for a hacked version of sendmail 5.58 that would > run on a Sun-4. It took weeks to find it. Not everyone has that much > time to spend on something like that. Note that an MX version of sendmail is included in the current software release (SunOS 4.0). This has been shipping to thousands of customers for about a month. -- Bill Nowicki Sun Microsystems
mcb@lll-tis.UUCP (06/03/88)
I'm beginning to get a glimmer of what Carl means in the "Second try",
but I still don't think I agree with the underlying assumptions.
Assuming that everyone is being honest (or at least rational) about
the pathalias cost of their links, both UUCP and Internet, then we
must assume that in the absence of pathological behavior the least
cost (i.e., "most efficient") routes are chosen.
One problem is that the pathalias constants (at the lower numeric levels;
you don't see too many "WEEKLY" entries any more) are stated as "grade of
connection" ("DIRECT", "DEDICATED") but people attempt to derive cost
and speed of delivery from them.
In many cases multiple hop SMTP service is *much* quicker than
single-hop UUCP service, and for people whose network costs are not
(yet) usage-sensitive (hint, hint), it is cheaper as well.
We only list internet connections in the map entry when we have a
TCP-UUCP connection with the site as well, so that mail to
<us>!foo!bar
will succeed if we have a TCP-UUCP connection to foo.gov, but
bar@foo
will fail since foo is not in our local domain;
<us>!foo.gov!bar
is handled by the sendmail config and will succeed in any case.
Michael C. Berch
mcb@tis.llnl.gov / {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcbhoney@umix.cc.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) (06/05/88)
i run pathalias output through this script: egrep -v '(\.(com|edu|mil|gov|net|org|arpa|[a-z][a-z]) .*!.*!)|(.\.(com|edu|mil|gov|net|org|arpa|[a-z][a-z]) )' peter