Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!karl_kleinpaste From: karl_kleinpaste@cis.ohio-state.edu Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted Message-ID: Date: 3 Jul 90 20:23:31 GMT References: Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Organization: Ohio State Computer Science Lines: 33 mdb@ESD.3Com.COM writes: karl> Actually, I am perfectly happy to be MX for a domain which is not a karl> direct UUCP connection to me. 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)? (The name I've attached to it is Domain Absolutist Rabid Rerouting, DARR, a mere word rearrangement from what you said. It's the highly restricted rightmost-FQDN syntax-based version of General Rabid Rerouting, GRR, which reroutes everything regardless of syntax or destination.) I would have to check that any multi-hop path doesn't have that property. I don't consider it a bug, from my standpoint -- it's only a question of whether a piece of mail will re-enter the Internet. As Eliot wrote to me the other day: EL: My suggestion, though, is that you state the possibility for mail EL: loops, and that you won't be responsible for them if you do not have EL: a direct connection with the [destination] site. I will take enough responsibility to check with intermediate postmasters if I can, but nothing further. I still _prefer_ direct connections; I just don't _require_ them. --karl -- "Reading news with GNUS gives the phrase `garbage collecting' a whole new meaning." --jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu