Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!glasgow!jim
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail,mail.uk-sendmail-workers
Subject: Re: Another 2.1 concept error?
Message-ID: <8906191030.AA28549@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Date: 19 Jun 89 10:31:27 GMT
Sender: daemon@cs.glasgow.ac.uk
Lines: 20
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 18 Jun 89 13:03:12 BST.

|> We in fact do something more - a makefile generates new NRS derived
|> input decks by editing out names we know to be a problem, like 'uk.ac.co',
|> 'uk.ac.mrc' etc (we have a uk.ac.gla.mrc)

This is an unsightly (and strictly speaking irrelevant) kludge. The
whole basis of the NRS was to prevent ambiguous domain names. The
rules say that a domain name cannot be used if it is already in use as
a higher-level name within the domain hierarchy. If that rule was
applied (oh that it were...), names like 'uk.ac.gla.mrc' and
'uk.ac.co' could not be used since they caused ambiguities. [Does mail
for 'co.foo' go to 'uk.co.foo' or 'uk.ac.co.foo'?] They wouldn't then
be permitted to appear in the NRS database and there would be no need
for people to kludge their mail tables. Why does the NRS let people
get away with registering illegal addresses?

Of course, everybody knows that real-world mail systems need quick and
dirty hacks like that since reality tends to be different from what
the standards say.....

		Jim