Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!uhccux!kahala!bob
From: bob@kahala.hig.hawaii.edu (Bob Cunningham)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: pseudo-domains (from an Internet viewpoint)..results
Message-ID: <4710@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: 31 Aug 89 17:00:30 GMT
References: <4685@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Sender: news@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Reply-To: bob@kahala.hig.hawaii.edu (Bob Cunningham)
Organization: University of Hawaii, Honolulu
Lines: 41

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