roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (07/17/89)
Why doesn't bitnet doesn't have a DNS domain name? It sure seems like having:
*.bitnet.net MX 10 cunyvm.cuny.edu
would make a lot of sense. It would be one less hack we'd all have to
worry about getting right in our sendmail.cf (or whatever) files.
--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu
"The connector is the network"mdb@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Mark D. Baushke) (07/18/89)
In article <3871@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > Why doesn't bitnet doesn't have a DNS domain name? It sure seems like having: > > *.bitnet.net MX 10 cunyvm.cuny.edu > > would make a lot of sense. It would be one less hack we'd all have to > worry about getting right in our sendmail.cf (or whatever) files. Ouch. That would force *all* Internet -> BITNET traffic through one site (cunyvm.cuny.edu). That would be a fine idea if there was only the one gateway between the two networks. However, there are many other gateways which may be used that do not require sending the packets all across the NSFNet. Especially for West Coast Internet sites. Besides, cunyvm.cuny.edu refuses all e-mail from our 3com.com domain with error messages like: 220 CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU running IBM VM SMTP R1.1 on Mon, 17 Jul 89 12:53:23 EDT helo bridge2.esd.3com.com 501 Syntax Error. Start Domain with 'a'..'z' or 'A'..'Z' (Note: I really wish that IBM was more forgiving. Hopefully, when the new Host Requirements RFC is published (officially allowing names like 3com.com) they will 'fix' their SMTP implementation...the next step after that will be to convince all the sites using IBM VM SMTP R1.1 to upgrade to the new version ;-< ) so if there were a special bitnet.net, some sites (like ours) would probably *still* have to fudge it the old way. -- Mark D. Baushke UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!mdb Internet: mdb@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM