Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!amgraf!cpsolv!rhg
From: rhg@cpsolv.UUCP (Richard H. Gumpertz)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  MXing the world (was RE:  New Host-Requirement RFCs)
Message-ID: <444@cpsolv.UUCP>
Date: 8 Nov 89 22:41:13 GMT
References: <8911051717.AA10735@alw.nih.gov> <2441@csun.edu>
Reply-To: rhg@cpsolv.uucp (Richard H. Gumpertz)
Organization: Computer Problem Solving, Leawood, Kansas
Lines: 14

In article <2441@csun.edu> cbcscmrs@ma.csun.edu (Mike Stump) writes:
>I have one simple question, why don't we (The Internet side) put an MX record
>into the root servers for the top-level domains .bitnet and maybe even .uucp?

I have always wondered why there were no .MX records for ".UUCP".  It sure
would make things easier for the sites that are in the "official" UUCP maps to
interact with the Internet world.  Any reason not to implement it?  I suspect
that many of the major backbone sites already have the maps in place, so it
probably wouldn't cost much in time or resources.
-- 
===============================================================================
| Richard H. Gumpertz rhg%cpsolv@uunet.uu.NET -or- ...uunet!amgraf!cpsolv!rhg |
| Computer Problem Solving, 8905 Mohawk Lane, Leawood, Kansas 66206-1749      |
===============================================================================