Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!umn-d-ub!rhealey From: rhealey@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted Message-ID: <3670@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> Date: 10 Jul 90 00:16:30 GMT References: <1990Jun28.164938.23367@DSI.COM> <3008.268b1e9a@mccall.com> <1990Jul5.005618.17046@techbook.com> <3070.2694591f@mccall.com> <3662@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> <3077.26985a23@mccall.com> Reply-To: rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu (Rob Healey) Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth Lines: 257 In article <3077.26985a23@mccall.com> tp@mccall.com writes: >In article <3662@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>, rhealey@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey) writes: >> In article <3070.2694591f@mccall.com> tp@mccall.com writes: >>>in New Jersey before one guy in the city changed his mind (he didn't even >>>answer my mail for 3 weeks, later said he read it but was too busy to >>>answer, and if I hadn't found anyone else, he'd do it, but it would be a >>>while before he could get around to it. REAL friendly). >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hmmmm #2. >> >> The last sentance shows a VERY disturbing attitude on the part of >> small UUCP sites. i.e. UUCP connections are a RIGHT not >> a PRIVLEDGE. Most small sites take on the attitude that bigger >> site admins should drop all their responsibilitys to their >> organization and cater to the whim of the smaller site; GET REAL. > >Personally I figure anyone that takes 3 weeks to answer mail is being a tad >unfriendly, unless it is an honest mistake. This guy read my mail but chose >to ignore it. That is not what I call friendly. I'd rather get a message >saying I can't do it now, contact me in a month if you still haven't found >anyone (I did get one of those BTW). > Hmmm, when was the last time you had 1000+ messages in your mail box? Yup, I'm serious, 1000+. If anyone feels they are being ignored then use Ma Bell. If they hang up on you immediately THEN you are being ignored. Try administrating hundreds or thousands of clients and servers, each with a very impatient user, and you'll start to understand why 3 weeks may be a SHORT period of time to get a response. >> How many of these small sites realize the amount of TIME and >> MONEY it takes to support a small .UUCP site from the other >> side? > >I've done it. I've run a uucp site with numerous small neighbors, most >unregistered. It isn't that big a pain. (Running newsfeeds to them when >their sites frequently go down IS a pain, but that is another issue.) Maybe >it's worse for a sendmail site, I don't know. I don't deny your right to >refuse to do it. It would be nice if you didn't take 3 weeks to say no (or >maybe, or whatever). > For the last sentance, refer to the previous paragraph. As for the first part: I also have worked with small UUCP only sites with 10 or so smaller neighbors. When a site admin took the time to learn how to maintain mail and use it I had no problems. When a site admin felt it was my problem to fix HIS/HER bad addresses then there were problems. If your small sites accept the responsibility of maintaining their mail system then count yourself lucky. >> How many realize how bad they screw things up with >> poorly constructed mail addresses with .UUCP or multiple >> combinations of !%@ that take ALOT of time constructing >> rulesets for? > >Note that I was talking about finding an MX site so that I could STOP being >a .uucp site! It sounds like if you go to as much trouble as you imply, you >probably provide very good service, in which case I find your attitude >puzzling. If you didn't do a lot of work on custom rule sets, but just took >the easy way out, it wouldn't be that much work. > I learned my lesson after spending weeks bending over backwards trying to fix rulesets. It is easier to have the small systems generate proper addresses than for me to waste my time trying to fix them when they reach the larger system. Needless to say, when I moved the responsibility for proper addresses to the smaller sites they got upset. Apparently a feed site is supposed to do hours of programming for FREE so that the small sites don't have worry about how they address the mail. I've corrected people on this small point and most got rather huffy about it. Again, if you have small sites that take responsibility for themselves count yourself lucky. >> Why any internet site would take on the pain in the ass of >> supporting a .UUCP site is beyond me, the grief involved >> isn't worth it. > >I guess some people are more generous than you. Luckily, there seem to be a >lot of them. I was simply pointing out the existance of people like you. >Thank you for confirming my point. > My "problem" is that I was too generous to the wrong people and am now jaded due to the experiences. For every small site that is willing to take responsibility for what is comming out of it there are at least 2 more that think mail addresses are the feeds responsibility and not their own. >> I know from experience. The small sites >> complain about how expensive domain registration is, that >> cost is no where near the TIME cost of supporting a .uucp >> site on the feed side. >Then you have ill-mannered sites. Tell them so and dump them. Just don't >generalize that to all of us. Again, I wanted to get registered, and >couldn't find an MX site. > I picked the wrong message to go into soapbox mode. I did not mean to imply that YOUR site was ill mannered. It would appear that you have been lucky enough to have responsible site admins on the small systems you feed. >Let me get this straight. You feel that we should get registered so we >won't generate bogus addresses, but you aren't in the least bit interested >in helping us do it, right? Thanks a lot! > Hmmm, you're reaching a bit here. My problem is with sites that don't take responsibility for their bad addressing. If they want to register a domain I would help them. IF I saw the request in an overloaded mail box or IF they called me. If I didn't have the time myself I'd refer them to uunet or maybe a local site that might have someone that could spare the time. My gripe is against those who DON'T get registered even though they have the means to do so AND who complain when their trash addresses come bouncing back to them AND they won't bother to do anything on their end. >Some of us don't have the money or connections to get onto the internet (it >takes both). I guess you consider us useless, eh? I note that you read >netnews, which originated in the uucp world, and includes many uucp sites >(including the sender of the message you are flaming in response to), so we >must not be totally beneath your notice. Why are you even reading a group >devoted to uucp mail? I guess you think we should all subscribe to uunet >and leave you alone, eh? Some people can't afford that. Sorry. > Because I manage a local domain park I like to see if new software for helping me do that is available. Also, does the word "cross-posting" help clear anything up? Until recently the cost of being in the domain park that I'm in was a whopping $0.00 a year... The people who feed us need to be compensated for their time now; no biggie. The domain park was originally formed so people wouldn't have to pay uunet's rates. The top level park has 1 MX forwarder. It is the job of each small site in the park to generate valid To: and From: headers, again no biggie. If a site can't be bothered to construct valid addresses then there are other places they can get "free" UUCP feeds from... You assumed since I posted from my guest account at the U that I was some stuck up University admin. WRONGO. Most of the sites I deal with are small UUCP sites, my own personal system is a small UUCP site. I help maintain 6 small UUCP sites out of the goodness of my heart, for lack of a better term. The gripe I have comes from experience with small UUCP sites. The larger sites I've worked at were responsible for what went out their ethernets and UUCP lines. Again, your experiences with small sites has obviously been a hell of alot better than mine. #include Also, the U of M Duluth is NOT the MX forwarder for the park I'm in. I'm in a subdomain of the mn.org domain. As such, UMD has no bearing on anything I've stated in this note or the previous one. >Some people seem to get spoiled by having a university or large commercial >concern to pick up their tab. I hope you end up at a small site some day >that nobody wants to take the time to deal with. > See above for the first sentance. I HAVE been on the receiving end of people saying F.O. when I've asked for feeds. I also understand why they said F.O. from other experiences I have had. Small sites don't seem to understand what's involved with scaling 10 sites up to 1000+. They don't seem to comprehend that someone's mailbox can have 1000+ messages in it, all of them screaming for IMMEDIATE attention. They seem to think that they are being snubbed or that system admins are selfish when they say that they don't have the time to rewrite the sendmail rulesets that service hundreds of workstations and multiple networks so that the site can handle some obscure feature of the small systems's mailer. You say I'm spoiled without knowing anything about my experience with UUCP systems large and small and then damn me to be stuck in the middle of nowhere with arrogant UUCP sites... >> I'd feed a domain site that >> generated valid internet addresses in a second, I'd tell someone >> who insisted on a .uucp domain to keep on walking. > >Many of us generate valid domain addresses which are then screwed up by our >feed sites. You may be blaming the wrong people. If you've been reading >this discussion, you will see that very few people INSIST on a .uucp >address, but many people can't find an MX forwarder, which is a >prerequisite to doing anything else. I guess you are an example of the >reason for this. > ????? I've spent MANY hours making sure that any site I'm responsible for doesn't mess up a valid address and trys the best it can to deliver a poorly constructed address. In my experience MOST, but not all, messed up addresses are due to the INITIAL system NOT producing an user@host.domain type address in the headers. Intermediate sites then try to construct an address without enough knowledge of the source/destination. I personally bounce the message back from whence it came rather than playing God and guessing wrong. If the initial site constructed a valid address to begin with then the intermediate sites would have had less need to muck with the address. Again, it appears that you and your feed sites are at odds so I won't go into your specific situation. Again, my beef is with sites that refuse to take responsibility for their own end of things. You obviously do and I wish there were more sites like yours. >> I'm not >> being unfriendly, I'm saving myself and my organization >> time and money. If the small sites can't be burdened to construct >> valid and easily parsed addresses then their feeds shouldn't >> be burdened with having to decipher the garbage To: and Reply-To: >> lines. > >Refusing with good grace (for whatever reason, including yours) to be >helpful is not unfriendly. Flaming people for being in a situation that >they can not or do not know how to correct is certainly unfriendly, at the >least. I am (thanks to the good people at Kansas State University) no >longer in this situation, but I still have empathy for those who are. >Having been there twice, at 2 different sites/companies, I feel qualified >to some extent to speak on the subject. I'd bet you have never run a small >uucp site. > Hmm, you flamed back without knowing that I've run many small UUCP sites and have helped run large UUCP/SMTP/MX forwarder sites. Maybe I'm guilty of not explaining myself better. >> The US post office, and most others in the world, REQUIRE a certain >> format of a letter's address. I see no reason why requiring e-mail >> addresses to be standard is any more unreasonable than requiring paper >> mail addresses to be standard. > >The post office does not require each person using the mail to find a >well-connected sponsor before he can put a return address on his envelope >to which said post office will be willing to deliver mail. Your analogy is >flawed. > But they DO require that the To and return addresses be in a standard format so the analogy is still there. Maybe the reason that more internet sites don't MX is because of small sites that cause feed admins to burn out on helping them. The less work the larger site has to do, or COMPENSATE for, the more likly they'll be "friendly". >> All views expressed here are MY OWN and in no way, shape or form >> represent the views of the U of M or any of its subunits. If you want to >> scream at somebody about the contents, scream at me. > >Sure thing. However, if you are the postmaster of your site (as you imply), >I submit that the above paragraph is blatantly false. I implied nothing about being a system admin at the posting site, only that I HAD experience with system administration. The account is a guest account and as I stated before: All views expressed here are MY OWN and in no way, shape or form represent the views of the U of M or any of its subunits. If you want to scream at somebody about the contents, scream at me. Let's move this to mail, I doubt people want us to waste net bandwidth on this subject. -Rob