pgf@mtung.ATT.COM (Paul Fox) (07/02/87)
Okay, so I've got a question. First let me say that I know next to nothing about this stuff, though I do understand the concept of domains etc. I am relatively naive about mail/uucp networking issues. Please don't chop my head off... Why wouldn't the following be a "good thing"?: Let's assume that for quite some time there will be UNIX boxes around that know nothing about domains. I don't think that's too farfetched. Let's assume that I use one regularly. Don't even assume that. I do. Let's also assume that I want to send mail to a friend who logs into a similar box running similarly antiquated (you say) software. It used to be that I could send mail to friend on theirbox via various machines as: mail mach1!mach2!theirbox!friend And *sometimes* they could reply as: mail mach2!mach1!mybox!pgfox At other times (or for other friends), the path would not be reversible, and different hops would be used: mail mach3!mach4!mybox!pgfox This is the anarchy we've all grown to know and love, expressed in an incredibly intuitive (I think) syntax. Now if I ruled the world, and had thought of domains (which I might not have, that's a different problem), I might have tried to preserve the syntax so beloved to all of my subjects, and invented some "meta-machines" for people to send mail through, as in: mail EDU!UNIV!theirbox!friend The path is non-reversible, of course. My friend would type: mail COM!ATT!mtune!pgfox but that's okay, because we're already used to non-reversible paths. The reason I mention this is that it extends naturally to the current situation where neither mybox nor theirbox speaks domains. If we assume we both talk to machines that do know domains (mine is mtune), then we get: mail mtune!EDU!UNIV!theirneighbor!theirbox!friend and of course: mail theirneighbor!COM!ATT!mtune!mybox!pgfox In reality, of course, mtune, which understands domains, will eat both the EDU and the UNIV "meta-machines", treating them however it does now in "theirneighbor@UNIV.EDU". I thinks this also eliminates precedence problems (of the NO NO NO NO NO variety. (As well as the problem that my addresses are always being swallowed by my line kill character. :-) Okay-- I've proved my ignorance-- rip me apart. By the way, I *think* I can be reached at "p.g.fox@mtune!ATT.COM", but I *know* I can be reached at "ihnp4!mtung!pgf". -- Paul Fox, AT&T Information Systems, Middletown NJ. [ihnp4|vax135]!mtung!pgf (201)957-2698
pdb@sei.cmu.edu (Patrick Barron) (07/03/87)
In article <969@mtung.ATT.COM> pgf@mtung.UUCP (gws-Paul Fox) writes:
-> The reason I mention this is that it extends naturally to the
-> current situation where neither mybox nor theirbox speaks
-> domains. If we assume we both talk to machines that do know
-> domains (mine is mtune), then we get:
->
-> mail mtune!EDU!UNIV!theirneighbor!theirbox!friend
->
-> and of course:
->
-> mail theirneighbor!COM!ATT!mtune!mybox!pgfox
->
-> In reality, of course, mtune, which understands domains, will
-> eat both the EDU and the UNIV "meta-machines", treating them
-> however it does now in "theirneighbor@UNIV.EDU".
There already is such a thing, though it doesn't work quite the way you
describe. Check out RFC 976, "UUCP Mail Interchange Format Standard".
According to that, your first example would become:
mail mtune!UNIV.EDU!theirneighbor!theirbox!friend
Since mtune understands domains, it should be able to deal with the UNIV.EDU
part, and your mail gets sent happily along its way. It's almost, but not
quite, what your idea says. The big problem with your system is: what if
EDU or UNIV, or whatever other meta-machines you might recognize, are
coincidentally the *real* names of *real* machines?
-> I thinks this also eliminates precedence problems (of the NO
-> NO NO NO NO variety. (As well as the problem that my
-> addresses are always being swallowed by my line kill
-> character. :-)
Try "stty dec". Oh, wait, you work for AT&T, right? Ooops, never mind. :-)
->
-> Okay-- I've proved my ignorance-- rip me apart.
->
-> By the way, I *think* I can be reached at "p.g.fox@mtune!ATT.COM",
-> but I *know* I can be reached at "ihnp4!mtung!pgf".
From a domain-based machine, it would more likely be "mtune!p.g.fox@ATT.COM".
->--
-> Paul Fox, AT&T Information Systems, Middletown NJ.
-> [ihnp4|vax135]!mtung!pgf (201)957-2698
--Pat.paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) (07/05/87)
In article <969@mtung.ATT.COM> pgf@mtung.UUCP (gws-Paul Fox) writes: |Okay, so I've got a question. First let me say that I know |next to nothing about this stuff, though I do understand the |concept of domains etc. I am relatively naive about mail/uucp |networking issues. Please don't chop my head off... Okay :-). |Why wouldn't the following be a "good thing"?: ... |It used to be that I could send mail to friend on theirbox via |various machines as: | mail mach1!mach2!theirbox!friend |And *sometimes* they could reply as: | mail mach2!mach1!mybox!pgfox | |At other times (or for other friends), the path would not be |reversible, and different hops would be used: | mail mach3!mach4!mybox!pgfox | |This is the anarchy we've all grown to know and love, |expressed in an incredibly intuitive (I think) syntax. I wouldn't call it anarchy - there IS structure to it. FYI, !-paths are a form of what's called 'source routing', and also fall generally under the term (loosely applied here): "route-address". |Now if I ruled the world, [...] | mail EDU!UNIV!theirbox!friend |The path is non-reversible, of course. My friend would type: | mail COM!ATT!mtune!pgfox |but that's okay, because we're already used to non-reversible paths. You and your friend are used to non-reversible paths. As the general public begins to use this stuff, they need to be able to just say 'reply' and have the message get back to the sender. This is one of the reasons why domains were "invented". Your syntax will actually work on some hosts, because of the way the first steps of address parsing ("canonicalization" or "homogenation") are sometimes done. (Please, don't anyone press me for specifics! I have a sendmail.cf that I'm experimenting with that would accept this -- quite by accident). However, the syntax that most domain-uucp hosts would accept is: mail theirbox.UNIV.EDU!friend which means that "domain!user" when there's only one "!" will often be taken as equivilent to "user@domain". |If we assume we both talk to machines that do know |domains (mine is mtune), then we get: | mail mtune!EDU!UNIV!theirneighbor!theirbox!friend mail mtune!theirneighbor.UNIV.EDU!theirbox!friend |and of course: | mail theirneighbor!COM!ATT!mtune!mybox!pgfox mail theirneighbor!mtime.ATT.COM!mybox!pgbox |In reality, of course, mtune, which understands domains, will |eat both the EDU and the UNIV "meta-machines", treating them |however it does now in "theirneighbor@UNIV.EDU". The variants I've shown above will work on most or all UUCP/domain hosts, already. I think they are cleaner and more elegant (and more intuitive to the uninitiated!) than what you suggest. |Okay-- I've proved my ignorance-- rip me apart. Hardly. Or at least, I hope not. |By the way, I *think* I can be reached at "p.g.fox@mtune!ATT.COM", |but I *know* I can be reached at "ihnp4!mtung!pgf". |-- | Paul Fox, AT&T Information Systems, Middletown NJ. | [ihnp4|vax135]!mtung!pgf (201)957-2698 You can probably be reached at: p.g.fox@mtune.ATT.COM pgfox@mtune.ATT.COM mtune.ATT.COM!pgfox mtung!pgfox pgfox@mtung.UUCP (I notice that mtunE is different from mtunG, which probably causes some confusion. I have both in my maps here...) -- Paul A. Vixie, Esq. "A viler evil than to throw a man into a paul%vixie@uunet.uu.net sacrificial furnace, is to demand that he {uunet,ptsfa,hoptoad}!vixie!paul leap in, of his own free will, and that he San Francisco, (415) 647-7023 build the furnace, besides." (Ayn Rand)