Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!yale!quasi-eli!cs.yale.edu!Anselmo-Ed From: Anselmo-Ed@cs.yale.edu (Ed Anselmo) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted Message-ID: Date: 6 Jul 90 16:01:57 GMT References: <3008.268b1e9a@mccall.com> <2723@litchi.bbn.com> Sender: news@cs.yale.edu Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158 Lines: 23 In-reply-to: rsalz@bbn.com's message of 3 Jul 90 13:35:24 GMT >>>>> On 3 Jul 90 13:35:24 GMT, rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) said: Karl> Actually, I am perfectly happy to be MX for a domain which is Karl> not a direct UUCP connection to me. Rich> This is kind of risky, no? Easy to get mail loops. Rich> I think conventional wisdom is that the MX'er should be one-hop Rich> off the IP-connected Internet. Rich> At any rate, none of the intermediate sites had better be on the Rich> Internet or the odds of getting a loop will approximate 1.000, Rich> and rightly so. If you flatten the UUCP envelope from foo.dom.ain to foo (or whatever their UUCP name is), then unless an intermediate site tries to be cute about things (i.e. expanding UUCP names into domains), there shouldn't be much trouble (famous last words...). Of course, the odds of this happening increase with the number of intermediate hops. Things always seem to be easier if the site is directly connected to the Internet host. -- Ed Anselmo anselmo-ed@cs.yale.edu {harvard,decvax}!yale!anselmo-ed