jr@foros1.UUCP (John Rogers) (05/14/84)
Hi. I'm not sure if using something like "gatech!wanted!ga" is such a
good idea (I prefer "ga.wanted@gatech"), for three reasons:
For most of us, it's easier to create a mail alias than to
create a pseudo-site. Berkeley mail, Rand mail ("MH"), and
sendmail are all set up to do this (well, depending on how much
of a guru you are), whereas I'm not sure how to implement
"gatech!wanted!ga" without modifying the UUCP source code (or
creating a real machine named "wanted").
I'm not sure how routing would work on ARPANET, and we ought to
keep it simple for their sake (after all, they might want to
move to Chicago too! :-)
In the long term, we want to get to a domain-based mail system
for UUCP, rather than a route-based system. Now that I think
of it, having what looks like a site named "wanted" would
really screw you if some mailer/whatever in between decides to
"optimize" the route and ends up sending it to some other
"wanted" site. Of course, we could always add special checks
to the optimizers for "wanted", but they're probably complicated
enough already!
If the net decides that "*.wanted" mailboxes are the way to go (and I
think the idea certainly has some merit), then I'll implement it on my
machine. If pseudo-UUCP sites are the way to go, then I'll implement
that, *IF* I don't have to modify UUCP. So, consider this a "yes" vote
for the idea in general.
By the way, is there a master list of distributions? I know of a whole
bunch, including net,mod,fa,fs,usa,ca,ba,btl,bell,att,proper (to name a
bunch off the top of my head). Does anyone think it's worthwhile to
keep a master list? (No, I don't think I'm going to volunteer, I was
just curious if there are any major advantages or disadvantages).
See ya!
--
JR (John Rogers)
...ihnp4!fortune!foros1!jr
also fortune!jr and proper!jr