Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!intercon!amanda@intercon.uu.net From: amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Re^4: Short-circuiting a route Message-ID: <1164@intercon.UUCP> Date: 10 Jul 89 15:40:10 GMT References: <1130@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <562@daitc.daitc.mil> <89Jun28.104844edt.10373@neat.ai.toronto.edu> <8452@rayssd.ray.com> <507@eda.com> Sender: news@intercon.UUCP Reply-To: amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation Lines: 21 In article <1130@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) writes: > something equally disgusting like. > > machine.decnet.xyz.com I'd argue that this is far less disgusting, since it subsumes the routing information underneath the XYZ.COM domain. How XYZ.COM administers their namespace is their business, and if they want to make life easier for themselves by advertising an MX record for *.DECNET.XYZ.COM, that's fine with me, since it's still a fully qualified domain name. This also lets people inside this subdomain mail to people on other DECnet networks by using FQDNs without going through contortions to route through gateways. Looks like a somewhat reasonable way to do things to me. Doesn't DEC do something like this with DEC.COM? -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@intercon.uu.net | ...!uunet!intercon!amanda