mcr@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca (Michael Richardson) (12/12/90)
[followup's to comp.mail.misc. This doesn't really belong in comp.mail.sendmail. Some might think comp.mail.uucp might be more k appropriate though -- change the followup] In article <1990Dec8.234514.11668@vmp.com> oc@vmp.com (Orlan Cannon) writes: >sites just like the Internet sites and set up a not-for-profit >nameserver just to handle the correct routing of this kind of mail. >Thus was UUNET born. (Can anyone fill me in on this part of UUNET >history?) This was not entirely the way I understood uunet's creation. >My personal feeling? UUNET is a great start, but they're close to >overloaded. We need to start the UUCP Project all over again. >Perhaps a not-for-profit UUNET2? I had also understood that there might eventually be multiple uunet-like sites. But I don't think that making .UUCP official is such a good idea either. What needs to be done is to encourage people to start registering under their municipal domains. I understand that .us doesn't want people registering AND having sub-domains. I really can't fanthom the reasons for this kind of thing. It just seems silly to me. So does .com -- what is wrong with .com.us? (Other than its length) You likely can't reply to the address in the From: of the post --- I'm still waiting for the ocunix.on.ca MX to appear. -- :!mcr!: | The postmaster never | So much mail, Michael Richardson | resolves twice. | so few cycles. mcr@julie.UUCP/michael@fts1.UUCP/mcr@doe.carleton.ca -- Domain address - Pay attention only to _MY_ opinions. - registration in progress.
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (12/14/90)
In article <1990Dec12.021841.4983@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca> mcr@fts1.UUCP writes: > What needs to be done is to encourage people to start registering >under their municipal domains. I understand that .us doesn't want >people registering AND having sub-domains. I really can't fanthom >the reasons for this kind of thing. It just seems silly to me. So >does .com -- what is wrong with .com.us? (Other than its length) What is a municipal domain and why should they exist apart from the forwarders? It makes sense to me to make most uucp sites subdomains of their internet forwarder so that wild-card MX's can allow them to come and go without bothering anyone but the forwarder. If all the uucp sites register, the size of the map dbm files will have to double to accomodate both the uucp name and the domain-style name. Why is that a good thing? Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu (12/15/90)
les@chinet.chi.il.us writes:
It makes sense to me to make most uucp sites
subdomains of their internet forwarder so that wild-card MX's
can allow them to come and go without bothering anyone but the
forwarder.
I think you misunderstand the administrative intent of MX RRs. By
providing service to something.org, I am explicitly stating that I
provide a service to someone other than my own organization.
MorningStar.COM is not part of Ohio State, but I MX for them. There
is no reason why Morning Star Technologies should be considered to be
affiliated with OSU. Hence, a separate domain.
Even more so, for private, single machines, I really don't want them
to be considered part of my organization. I do MX service for
galaxia.newport.ri.us and a few related systems; they are by no means
part of OSU and I don't intend to have them identified as such.
Just for grins, imagine one of the sites that have seriously
embarrassed themselves on the networks having been identified as a
subdomain of the Internet entity which feeds them. I rather suspect
that the feed site would not take too kindly to such a suggestion.les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (12/15/90)
In article <KARL.90Dec14145843@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >I think you misunderstand the administrative intent of MX RRs. By >providing service to something.org, I am explicitly stating that I >provide a service to someone other than my own organization. >MorningStar.COM is not part of Ohio State, but I MX for them. There >is no reason why Morning Star Technologies should be considered to be >affiliated with OSU. Hence, a separate domain. I guess so. I thought they were mail addresses. >Even more so, for private, single machines, I really don't want them >to be considered part of my organization. I do MX service for >galaxia.newport.ri.us and a few related systems; they are by no means >part of OSU and I don't intend to have them identified as such. OK, then it still makes sense for an internet-uucp (or anything else) gateway to establish a domain name just for the purpose of controlling the namespace at the same point as the physical links. With a wild-card MX pointing to the forwarder, it should be possible to add any number of addressable off-net machines without changing anything but the forwarder's tables. The value of this is obvious within organizations, but not everyone "has" an organization. This arrangement would also make invertable address re-writing possible at the gateway assuming the off-net names forwarded by a particular host are all unique in their native syntax. >Just for grins, imagine one of the sites that have seriously >embarrassed themselves on the networks having been identified as a >subdomain of the Internet entity which feeds them. I rather suspect >that the feed site would not take too kindly to such a suggestion. I don't understand this any more than I would understand my state, city, or post office being embarrassed by their mention in the return address on a postal letter, but I'll take your word for it. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
ckd@cs.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (12/16/90)
les> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: Karl> karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: les> I guess so. I thought they [MX records] were mail addresses. Nope. The rarely-seen "MB" or "MG" records, but not MX. MX means "if you have mail for xyz.com, send it to foo.bar.net, they know how to handle it from there." Karl> Even more so, for private, single machines, I really don't want Karl> them to be considered part of my organization. I do MX service Karl> for galaxia.newport.ri.us and a few related systems; they are by Karl> no means part of OSU and I don't intend to have them identified as Karl> such. les> OK, then it still makes sense for an internet-uucp (or anything else) les> gateway to establish a domain name just for the purpose of controlling les> the namespace at the same point as the physical links. Why? The domain *servers* for a domain do not have to be within that domain. For example, the name servers for MorningStar.COM are at Ohio State, where the MXes are-- doesn't this "control the namespace at the same point as the physical links"? After all, anyone who is willing and able to give you MX service is *probably* set up to handle domain service for you, TOO. les> With a wild-card MX pointing to the forwarder, it should be les> possible to add any number of addressable off-net machines without les> changing anything but the forwarder's tables. The value of this is les> obvious within organizations, but not everyone "has" an les> organization. Which is what foo.city.st.us is for. Karl> Just for grins, imagine one of the sites that have seriously Karl> embarrassed themselves on the networks having been identified as a Karl> subdomain of the Internet entity which feeds them. I rather suspect Karl> that the feed site would not take too kindly to such a suggestion. les> I don't understand this any more than I would understand my state, les> city, or post office being embarrassed by their mention in the les> return address on a postal letter, but I'll take your word for it. People don't *assume* that it's your city's fault you have access to the postal service; after all, the USPS is required to mail your letters (assuming they're legal mail, i.e. not bombs or whatever). However, if your stuff goes out with headers of something like "les@chinet.uucp.very-large-u.edu," and I think you're a complete idiot who shouldn't be allowed near any computer more powerful than an abacus, who am I likely to write to? "postmaster@bigsite.very-large-u.edu." I mean, *I* don't know you're just freeloading off of them... -- [ Christopher Davis - <ckd@cs.bu.edu> - <..!bu.edu!cs.bu.edu!ckd> ] A message destined for delivery in *your* domain is fair game for anything you may want to do, up to and including translating the entire message, header and all, into Swahili. -- chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg)
mcr@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca (Michael Richardson) (12/16/90)
In article <1990Dec13.203054.17265@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >>the reasons for this kind of thing. It just seems silly to me. So >>does .com -- what is wrong with .com.us? (Other than its length) >What is a municipal domain and why should they exist apart from >the forwarders? It makes sense to me to make most uucp sites >subdomains of their internet forwarder so that wild-card MX's >can allow them to come and go without bothering anyone but the >forwarder. If all the uucp sites register, the size of the >map dbm files will have to double to accomodate both the uucp >name and the domain-style name. Why is that a good thing? I couldn't agree with you more --- having everyong register a municipal domain IN THE UUCP MAPS in not a good thing. Although one might argue that the MX databases could handle it (being already distributed) I don't think that is good either. >Les Mikesell > les@chinet.chi.il.us I'm not sure what you had to go through to register chinet.chi.il.us: (I'm sure glad they didn't mandate chinet.chicago.il.us!) --- but wouldn't it be easier if there was the one MX record pointing *.chi.il.us to some friendly local site? (It need not be the actual machine with the MX record) [I'm assuming that chinet's link to the rest of the world is some sort of dialup link, e.g. UUCP -- you aren't actually on the Internet] If authority was given to the chi.il.us forwarder to create sub-domains and they made it as easy to register site.chi.il.us as it is to register a UUCP Zone site, the UUCP maps would go away. I'm beginning to find that with the Internet two telebit hops away that there is very little point in keeping extensive maps. Unless I can hack pathalias to favour the UUCP name when producing routes (e.g. I have ljk = ljk.ocunix.on.ca, sandelman.ocunix.on.ca ljk.ocunix.on.ca(DEMAND). But I want pathalias to produce 'ljk!%s' since I'm the only one that knows that ljk = ljk.ocunix.on.ca, but uux needs uucp names), I may just go the route of hand building my paths file. -- :!mcr!: | The postmaster never | So much mail, Michael Richardson | resolves twice. | so few cycles. mcr@julie.UUCP/michael@fts1.UUCP/mcr@doe.carleton.ca -- Domain address - Pay attention only to _MY_ opinions. - registration in progress.
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (12/17/90)
In article <CKD.90Dec15182540@bucsd.bu.edu> ckd@cs.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) writes: >les> I guess so. I thought they [MX records] were mail addresses. >Nope. The rarely-seen "MB" or "MG" records, but not MX. MX means "if >you have mail for xyz.com, send it to foo.bar.net, they know how to >handle it from there." OK, I meant "mail-forwarding" or "mail-handling".. >les> OK, then it still makes sense for an internet-uucp (or anything else) >les> gateway to establish a domain name just for the purpose of controlling >les> the namespace at the same point as the physical links. >Why? The domain *servers* for a domain do not have to be within that >domain. For convienience mostly. If the gateway machine controls a domain namespace and has a wild-card MX for it, then there is no administrative overhead involved in adding or deleting machines under that domain. That is, the same person who sets up the uucp login info can set up subdomain name (and all at the same time). Likewise, the uucp sites with appropriate software could add their own subdomains or hide a few neighbors under their name without bothering anyone else. >les> With a wild-card MX pointing to the forwarder, it should be >les> possible to add any number of addressable off-net machines without >les> changing anything but the forwarder's tables. The value of this is >les> obvious within organizations, but not everyone "has" an >les> organization. >Which is what foo.city.st.us is for. Conceptually perhaps but in practice subdomains under .us are not allowed to set up additional subdomains without registering them with the top level. Also, you might want multiple machines with no geographical relationship to have the same domain - or you might have a laptop with no fixed location. >People don't *assume* that it's your city's fault you have access to the >postal service; after all, the USPS is required to mail your letters >(assuming they're legal mail, i.e. not bombs or whatever). >However, if your stuff goes out with headers of something like >"les@chinet.uucp.very-large-u.edu," and I think you're a complete idiot >who shouldn't be allowed near any computer more powerful than an abacus, >who am I likely to write to? >"postmaster@bigsite.very-large-u.edu." Does that mean that in a mail message from les@fb.com the .com domain is somehow responsible for everything I might say? Or is there some magic about the domain levels. Anyway we are getting sidetracked here. The main thing that I think needs to be addressed is the representation of uucp names on the internet. Consider the advice that is always seen to "get a domain name". In what way would making every existing uucp site get an official domain name be different than a mechanical translation of the existing maps other than the massive waste of manpower and time waiting for the names to be approved and the corresponding doubling of the map size on the uucp side. Is the name service really prepared for that many names to added without any structure? If the gateway machines each add one domain name to encompass the otherwise unorganized uucp (or whatever) machines that they handle, it would make everything else fall into place. And the gateways would then have a way to invert the mappings of the names between the internet and the preferred off-net forms for the cases where that is necessary or desirable. For sites that have some other reason to obtain their own name, this wouldn't have any effect. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (12/18/90)
In article <1990Dec15.235725.19155@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca> mcr@Latour.Sandelman.OCUnix.On.Ca (Michael Richardson) writes: >> les@chinet.chi.il.us > I'm not sure what you had to go through to register chinet.chi.il.us: >(I'm sure glad they didn't mandate chinet.chicago.il.us!) --- but >wouldn't it be easier if there was the one MX record pointing >*.chi.il.us to some friendly local site? (It need not be the actual >machine with the MX record) I don't administer chinet and wasn't involved with getting the domain registered. Chicago is something of an unusual case, though, because there is hardly any such thing as a local call here - almost every call has a "call-unit" charge associated depending on the time and distance. A group of people interested in news and mail got together and laid out paths to minimize the charges, but that wasn't really related to the domain name at all. > [I'm assuming that chinet's link to the rest of the world is some >sort of dialup link, e.g. UUCP -- you aren't actually on the Internet] > If authority was given to the chi.il.us forwarder to create >sub-domains and they made it as easy to register site.chi.il.us as >it is to register a UUCP Zone site, the UUCP maps would go away. Actually, I understand .us wanting to register sites individually, but I would think the forwarder would want to maintain its own namespace for any connections that would otherwise not have a domain name. This could also be done by a uucp machine that has a domain name of its own, though. For example, I set up the domain fb.com through uunet to cover a fairly dispersed group of uucp machines. There is one set of machines that all use the same alias file, so the From: line is just user@fb.com on any mail leaving any of these machines, but the mail transport will also automatically resolve user@anything.fb.com by stripping off the .fb.com and looking at what is left, so mail will actually go to any uucp neighbor without doing anything else to set up the name. > I'm beginning to find that with the Internet two telebit hops > away that there is very little point in keeping extensive maps. And when uunet is your forwarder, there is no reason to keep any maps at all except your local links and the things you need to get around any non-reversable paths. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us