Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!bridge2!mdb From: mdb@ESD.3Com.COM (Mark D. Baushke) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted Message-ID: Date: 2 Jul 90 08:00:56 GMT References: <3008.268b1e9a@mccall.com> Sender: news@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM Organization: 3Com Corp., Mountain View, CA. Lines: 52 In-reply-to: karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu's message of 29 Jun 90 19:10:43 GMT On 29 Jun 90 19:10:43 GMT, karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu said: karl> Actually, I am perfectly happy to be MX for a domain which is not a karl> direct UUCP connection to me. Sorry for the imprecision in the karl> previous article -- what I meant to say is, "I can't call you, but if karl> you can get your mail yourself _via_some_means_, I'll MX for you." karl> That is, I'll be MX for Foo-Bletch.ORG via pathalias support through karl> hop1!hop2!hop3!hop4!foo-bletch!%s if you wish. It works fine. One of karl> my MX connections does this, though it's only one intermediate hop. Hmmm...is it fair to assume that you do not allow non-direct sites to have *.Foo-Bletch.ORG names to be routed thusly hop1!hop2!hop3!hop4!foo-bletch!mumble.Foo-Bletch.ORG!%s because you favor rabbid domain-absolutist routing (I think this was the term)? This avoids the problem of the host hop2 implementing Karl's favorite routing policy and figuring out that the 'best' route to mumble.Foo-Bletch.ORG is via osu-cis causing a loop. [Please no more discussion on rabbid domain-absolutist routing. It was beat to death enough in recent memory. Only corrections to the name of the technique allowed. :-)] A similar rational holds for our Internet site. We prefer direct UUCP connections if we are to act as an MX for a site. If I am 'directly connected' I can use 'smartuucp' and pass user@mumble.Foo-Bletch.ORG without fear. This is good, simple and promotes using the domain syntax everywhere including UUCP transport. If I am not directly attached, I either have to worry about the routing policies of any intermediate third parties or flatten the domain name to a single UUCP hostname. I probably also need to originate a UUCP syntax path to that site from my machine. Flattening is ugly since one of the powerful features of the DNS is to allow each organization to add their own sub-domains if they so desire without bothering me to create a ...!foo-bletch!mumble path for each possible subdomain entry of Foo-Bletch.ORG. This would be less of a problem with a bunch of single host sites that desired to share a domain, such as is done in lonestar.org. (It is equivalent to creating a new domain for a site, but with no new paperwork to send to the NIC after the first one has been done.) BTW: Our site is willing to act as a DNS secondary for any domain needing one. -- Mark D. Baushke Internet: mdb@ESD.3Com.COM UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!mdb