Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!mccall!tp
From: tp@mccall.com
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Question about From: lines
Message-ID: <3025.26906674@mccall.com>
Date: 3 Jul 90 09:33:39 GMT
References: <14278@ucsd.Edu> <1990Jun12.190023.24311@chinet.chi.il.us> <2998.2688cec8@mccall.com> <1990Jul2.234056.5169@vmp.com>
Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA
Lines: 53

In article <1990Jul2.234056.5169@vmp.com>, oc@vmp.com (Orlan Cannon) writes:
> In article <2998.2688cec8@mccall.com>, tp@mccall.com writes:
>> If you want to use a different standard, it looks like you have 3 options:
>> 
>>     3) Reject the concept of integrating into the internet address scheme.
>>     Form an alternate network of uucp sites, with gateways into whatever
>>     networks you want to talk with (e.g. the internet) that perform the
>>     gatewaying function the way you want. ...
>  
> Or just designate certain machines to be "UUCP-Domain Gateway"
> machines.  Then everyone in the UUCP Domain could have an address
> such as "joe%bob.uucp@uunet.uu.net".
> 
> Then just make sure that uunet (or whatever registered gateway)
> would take the Internet addresses and turn them into valid addresses
> for whatever neighbor it was passing them to.  And receive addresses
> in any format and turn them into valid Internet addresses.  All it
> would take is informing the gateway what kind of mail software and
> what kind of addressing you are using.

I was referring to what it would take to create a network with no
exceptions or problems. You can't co-opt the existing uucp network, because
you don't have any way of shutting down non-conforming gateways, which will
continue to interject problems into your network. 

Your scheme, where the gateway routes in the format preferred by the
neighbor, simply pushes the problem down a level. The site that received
the message and wanted to pass it on would likewise have to ensure that he
translated the address as apropriate for the next site to receive it, etc.,
until it reached its destination. All the translations would have to be
unambiguous and reversible, since the recipient may want to reply.

Since we are talking about the existing network, what you are seeking here
is a degree of cooperation and concientiousness never before seen on a
net-wide basis. Great, how do we bring it about? You can't get everyone to
run the same software. Even now not all uucp sites run smail. Some sites
run smail, some run sendmail, and some run both. In the minority, but
definately out there, are mmdf, pmdf, and probably many others I don't know
about. What are the chances that these will all work together to the degree
that you describe (zip, they are all out there and we still have problems).

> It seems to me that this is the de facto situation and that the
> problems are occurring at the exceptions rather than the rule (i.e.
> sites that don't talk to their neighbors about the format of the
> stuff they intend to pass through them).

Actually, they aren't exceptions, just different sets of rules. In the
absence of an accepted standard that actually handles the problems, you can
argue about the best way to do it, but nobody can win the argument.
-- 
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp)     615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041        Manhattan, KS 66502, USA