bob@kahala.hig.hawaii.edu (Bob Cunningham) (08/30/89)
I'm interested in getting feedback on what common pseudo-domains are genrally useful in an Internet environment with many different types of people wanting to mail to all sorts of places that don't yet have clean domain-style addresses [yes, pseudo-hosts can be useful, too, but that's another story...]. Here's what I'm using (ruleset zero stuff)... The most used pseudo-domains I have are for UUCP and BITNET. Provided decent relays are defined as $U and $B, that's: R$*<@$+.bitnet>$* $#$M $@$B $:$1<@$2.bitnet>$3 R$*<@$+.uucp>$* $#$M $@$U $:$1<@$2.uucp>$3 However, I also find these useful: R$*<@$*.vnet> $#$M $@ibm.com $:$1<@2>$3 R$*<@$+.hepnet>$* $#$M $@lbl.gov $:$1<@$2.hepnet>$3 R$*<@$+.janet>$* $#$M $@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk $:$1<@$2.janet>$3 R$*<@$+.mfenet>$* $#$M $@lbl.gov $:$1<@$2.mfenet>$3 R$*<@$+.sdscnet>$* $#$M $@sds.sdsc.edu $:$1<@$2.sdscnet>$3 R$*<@$+.xerox>$* $#$M $@xerox.com $:$1.registry And I'm retaining this pseudo-domain as a crutch for people who still insist upon mailing to user@mumble.csnet instead of user@mumble.cs.net R$*<@$+.csnet>$* $#$M $@$2.cs.net $:$1<@$2.cs.net>$3 And this for people who want to type user@mumble.span instead of user@mumble.span.nasa.gov R$*<@$+.span>$* $#$M $@$2.span.nasa.gov $:$1<@$2.span.nasa.gov>$3 I've not yet figured out a general and reliable way to route mail using a .fido pseudo-domain. The .acsnet pseudo-domain seems to be obsolete (and, of course there are other .au addresses, but I believe those are handled correctly with MXs): #R$*<@$*.ACSNET> $#$M $@$2.oz.au $:$1 And so, I think are these, since apparently domain-style addresses (and MX records) exist. True? #R$*<@$+.CDN>$* $#$M $@relay.cs.net $:$1%$2.CDN<@ucb.csnet>$3 #R$*<@$+.COSAC>$* $#$M $@relay.cs.net $:$2/$1<@france.csnet>$3 #R$*<@$+.DFN>$* $#$M $@relay.cs.net $:$1%$2.DFN<@ucb.csnet>$3 #R$*<@$+.JUNET>$* $#$M $@relay.cs.net $:$1%$2.JUNET<@utokyo-relay>$3 Bob Cunningham Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii bob@kahala.hig.hawaii.edu
cfe+@andrew.cmu.edu (Craig F. Everhart) (08/31/89)
I'd argue that you're doing your users a disservice by maintaining the pseudo-domains. Toss 'em all. Why continue with bad craziness? Tell your insistent users (if any still insist) that you're simply helping them get used to the real world should they want to use anybody else's software. None of the domains you mention has any status recognized by the root name servers. Craig
bob@kahala.hig.hawaii.edu (Bob Cunningham) (09/01/89)
Thanks to many people, I can now say that the only pseudo-domains really worth carrying are for .UUCP and .BITNET (and most domestic BITNET sites already have equivalent domain-style addresses). Here are the gory details: Virtually all MFENET and HEPNET sites have domain equivalent addresses. Ditto for SDSCNET. IBM sites are handled though MX records (site.vnet.ibm.com). Registered FIDO systems ditto (site.fido.org). CSNET sites ditto (site.cs.net). SPAN sites ditto (site.span.nasa.gov). ACSNET systems have .au domain addresses. CDN systems have .ca domain addresses. JANET systems have .uk domain addresses JUNET systems have .jp domain addresses. COSAC is definitely obsolete, have .fr domain addresses DFN also obsolete, have .dbp.de domain addresses. XEROX sites have .xerox.com domain addresses. Your trivia for today is that most DEC sites previously addressed as site.dec.com are now site.enet.dec.com (subdomain enet for DEC engineering; presumably there are or soon will be separate subdomains for sales, etc.). Bob Cunningham Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii bob@kahala.hig.hawaii.edu
nomad@convex1.uucp (Lee Damon) (09/01/89)
In article <4710@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> bob@kahala.hig.hawaii.edu (Bob Cunningham) writes: >Registered FIDO systems ditto (site.fido.org). Minor correction time: site.fidonet.org not site.fido.org. Also, this will work for ANY fidonet node - even if they aren't registered. Just use their node number in the form fFIDONUMBER.nNETNUMBER.zZONENUMBER.fidonet.org as in f115.n104.z1.fidonet.org for 1:104/115 or p3.f115.n104.z1.fidonet.org for 1:104/115.3 . nomad (hostmaster for fidonet.org) --------------------------------- \ work: convex!nomad or nomad@convex.com - Lee "nomad" Damon - \ Marketing Computer Systems Administrator - Convex Corp. / \ Oxymoron of the week: "Athletic Scholarship" / \
hubcap@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Marshall) (09/01/89)
From article <4710@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, by bob@kahala.hig.hawaii.edu (Bob Cunningham): > Thanks to many people, I can now say that the only pseudo-domains really > worth carrying are for .UUCP and .BITNET (and most domestic BITNET sites > already have equivalent domain-style addresses). > > Here are the gory details: > > CSNET sites ditto (site.cs.net). > Nope... all csnet sites now have registered domain names, but not in the cs.net domain. The only hosts that use the cs.net domain are those associated with the CSNET Coordination and Information Center. All csnet sites (like us) have meaningful domain names like clemson.edu. -Mike Marshall hubcap@clemson.edu
gandalf@csli.Stanford.EDU (Juergen Wagner) (09/01/89)
In article <4710@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> bob@kahala.hig.hawaii.edu (Bob Cunningham) writes: >Thanks to many people, I can now say that the only pseudo-domains really >worth carrying are for .UUCP and .BITNET (and most domestic BITNET sites >already have equivalent domain-style addresses). In fact, these two should be the only two left. Oh, I should also mention that many Bitnet sites have already Internet domain names. >CSNET sites ditto (site.cs.net). Not all sites have names of that form. In fact, only a few have that form. All sites on CSnet have Internet domain names with MX forwarding on an appropriate CSnet-Internet gateway. There are lots of hosts in the .jp domain (Japan), or in .de (West Germany), just to name two. In general, I think, it is unnecessary to know that a particular site is on CSnet, unless you want to try ftp or telnet. >XEROX sites have .xerox.com domain addresses. That's almost true. They have .xerox.com NAMES. You cannot reach any arbitrary Xerox host from the Internet. The official mail gateways are xerox.com, arisia.xerox.com, xait.xerox.com, and maybe a Fuji Xerox host I don't know of. The mail system is set up in a way such that outside people do not have to know about Xerox-internal machines. Juergen Wagner gandalf@csli.stanford.edu wagner@arisia.xerox.com