mcr@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca (Michael Richardson) (12/29/90)
In article <KARL.90Dec26132215@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >mcr@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca writes: > Assuming that the uux/rmail interface was deemed to be bad, and one > went the BSMTP route, would we then have lots of problems with > the smart-host'ing being done (or have to do a massive coordination > effort), or would source routes suddenly become popular again? >I've read this note about 5 times in as many days, trying to figure >out what direction you're going or what specific point you're trying (I admit. I don't always make sense. The better you know me, the less sense I make :-)) >their RFC822 headers left intact, no molestation whatever. Anything >that's RFC-compliant is untouched, no matter what the origin: An Good. I have a feeling that there are sites that do this, probably due to the use of non-IDA sendmail... I have just recently compiled it (I haven't installed it yet. It looks very nice. I haven't entirely figured out the various tables. I think it will wait for 1991) >As for BSMTP, I can contain the same semantic content in uux/rmail as >I can in a BSMTP package. In fact, I do it, for CompuServe -- the >final transport involves a modified BSMTP envelope which is understood >on the CServe side, even though the queueing to CServe was done by >uux/rmail. There is no problem from my perspective with either the >BSMTP or uux/rmail transport interface. I don't see any relationship >to questions of source routes. Well, let me put it this way: say I have a BSMTP connection to carleton.ca, my MX forwarder. Now, I act as the gateway machine for ocunix.on.ca --- sub-hosts are connected to me via some form of UUCP connection. (all uux/rmail right now. I hope to change this soon) Some of these people 'smart-host' to me. Others may just generate routes through me. Lets gives some traditional names here before I get into too many 'ifs': Host 'a' connects to 'b' and 'c' (all are FQDN) Hosts 'b' and 'c' have other connections ('a' is not their 'smart-host', in fact, they might 'smart-host' elsewhere) but their route between each other is through 'a'. All connections are BSMTP. Host 'b' wants to send to 'c'. If the connections were 'uux/rmail' (i.e. UUCP) then the _route_ would for 'c' would be 'a!c!%s' right? What happens if the connections are BSMTP? If this were the Internet, then b would just do an MX lookup and either connect to c directly, or find that it should forward to some other host (maybe a). Assume now that all connections in and out of 'a' are some form of SMTP. Should 'a' really have to deal with '!' notation? (forget the rest of the world for a moment.) The From:/To: have usera@b and userb@c. What does the envelope have? This does sound a bit dense, but should the result of the path lookup now return '@a:userb@c'? :!mcr!: -- :!mcr!: | The postmaster never | - Pay attention only Michael Richardson | resolves twice. | to _MY_ opinions. - HOME: mcr@sandelman.ocunix.on.ca + Small Ottawa nodes contact me Bell: (613) 237-5629 + about joining ocunix.on.ca!