Path: utzoo!censor!geac!jtsv16!uunet!dino!sharkey!itivax!scs
From: scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: MXing the world (was RE:  New Host-Requirement RFCs)
Message-ID: <4395@itivax.iti.org>
Date: 10 Nov 89 17:21:55 GMT
References: <8911051717.AA10735@alw.nih.gov> <2441@csun.edu> <444@cpsolv.UUCP>
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute, Ann Arbor, MI.
Lines: 19

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?

rhg@cpsolv.UUCP (Richard H. Gumpertz) writes:
>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.

How do you differentiate between the 'right' .uucp site for your mail?
The MX records will come to you in preference order, not uucp connectivity
order for the site you want.  Since the MX record causes the mail to be
delivered to the host listed in the record, all *.uucp mail would go to
the *same* host for uucp handling.  I dunno anybody willing to handle that!
-- 
Steve Simmons	scs@iti.org   Industrial Technology Institute
	"Batches?  We don't need no steenking batches."