Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!mccall!tp From: tp@mccall.com Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted Message-ID: <3016.268b8d7c@mccall.com> Date: 29 Jun 90 17:18:52 GMT References: <3008.268b1e9a@mccall.com> Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA Lines: 96 In article , karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: > Actually, I am perfectly happy to be MX for a domain which is not a > direct UUCP connection to me. Sorry for the imprecision in the > previous article -- what I meant to say is, "I can't call you, but if > you can get your mail yourself _via_some_means_, I'll MX for you." > That is, I'll be MX for Foo-Bletch.ORG via pathalias support through > hop1!hop2!hop3!hop4!foo-bletch!%s if you wish. It works fine. One of > my MX connections does this, though it's only one intermediate hop. I think if more people were willing to do this, it'd go a long way towards getting more people registered. > I tend to think that just about any site can get an approximately-free > connection via such a means. If not, I have to wonder at the > viability of the site. I agree. > No, you weren't ripped off. The catch is that, while I am willing to > do these things, I don't _have_ to, and if I don't get around to doing > something for you next week, well, tough, sort of. I don't tend to > dally over such requests, but considering my current mail/news > condition (see my .signature), if I got a new request for such help > today, it would sit a couple of weeks before I even looked at it. > > UUNET, on the other hand, is in the business position of providing the > service. If you ask, they will do it. They will do all the legwork > for you, much as I would, but they have to recover the cost of doing > so differently than my employer (a state-supported university) would. > $35 is probably too low a cost, if you consider the amount of time and > effort required to do this sort of work. You got a good deal, even if > it still took a couple of months, as long as I include a guestimate > that a non-zero (non-trivial?) fraction of that time was you trying to > figure out what you had to do in order for UUNET to finish the job. What I meant was that I could do it rather than getting you or uunet or anyone else to do it. Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought. Apologies to uunet if my previous comment was unwarranted. The time delay was because I missed one thing I had to do (get my MX forwarder to send them mail), and they simply waited over a month until I wrote to them asking what the hold-up was. Granted it was my fault, but since I was paying money, I would have liked to see them follow up on it. Most businesses would under similar circumstances. They sent me a form, I sent it back, and I sent them a check. I waited the 30 days they say to allow, without hearing anything. Only in response to my query did they tell me what they were waiting on, and then it took 30 days. Yes it was my fault, but no it was not good service. > Sooner or later, a lot of us who really and truly believe in the > viability of domains are going to get sick of dealing with all those > unregistered hosts, and we're going to stop attempting to deal with > !-paths and .bitnet, and it's going to be quite a shock to all the > unregistered admins. I couldn't say that I blame you, but you will cause a chicken and egg problem, where you can't get onto the net (in any useful manner) without getting registered, and you can only find out about that by getting on the net. Seriously, I wonder how many sites out there aren't registered because they think that they can not due to lack of an available forwarder? >>[why do MX forwarders insist on direct connections] > They don't, and they don't have to. I don't, so I'm an existence > proof of the fact. I imagine, however, that an argument could be made > that life will be less traumatic if such connections are direct -- I > know that I _prefer_ direct connections, but I just don't _require_ > them. Most do, or at least used to. Even your previous message implied that you did. I suspect it is a common misconception. The old smail2.5 kit came with a list of possible forwarders. There were very few of them and the all insisted on direct connections except rutgers, who STRONGLY preferred them. That kit still floats around. That particular file is the only one I know of on the subject of finding a forwarder. (uunet told me that no such list currently exists.) So there is some misinformation floating around that makes it seem VERY hard to register. That information is obsolete, but has not been superceded. The file was produced by Stargate, who used to provide more documentation (and charge higher fees) than uunet. There is not one good, informative, source of information on this topic anywhere. (uunet's packet does mention that they will be your forwarder, if you subscribe to their service. I have nothing against their service, but I know I can't cost-justify it to my management...). Someone could write the docs, but how would you get them to the people that need to see them? -- Terry Poot The McCall Pattern Company (uucp: ...!rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp) 615 McCall Road (800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041 Manhattan, KS 66502, USA