Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!bellcore!rutgers!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!mccall!tp From: tp@mccall.com Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted Message-ID: <3081.2699a458@mccall.com> Date: 10 Jul 90 09:48:07 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> <3670@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.Edu> Followup-To: du> Lines: 93 Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA Lines: 90 In article <3670@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>, rhealey@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey) writes: > 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: > Let's move this to mail, I doubt people want us to waste net > bandwidth on this subject. > > -Rob Rob and I apparently had some severe misunderstandings here. I'll only respond to those things that I think are of general interest, the rest I'll move to mail. I apologize for the flames, they were caused by interpretting his message as a direct response to mine, which it wasn't. > 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. I'm amazed that you have had such apparently consistant bad experience. I would caution other readers not to generalizing from Rob's experience, as mine has been quite the contrary. He posts several examples of rudeness and ill-manneredness (is that a word) from small sites. I've served over 10 and never run into any single one with such a bad attitude. If I did, I'd tell him to find another feed, plain and simple. I've found that most people to whom I've given a uucp link properly appreciated that I was doing them a favor, and behaved accordingly. > 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. I do agree that anyone who can get registered and does not deserves the mail difficulties he gets. The whole gist of this discussion thread was that some people did not realize that it is not always easy to get registered, and some people don't know how. Hopefully the document Karl is working on will help with the latter. The willingness of sites like Karl's to support MX for indirect uucp links should help the former. > 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. Does anyone else think that this sort of thing indicates a general weakness in sendmail? Few people seem to really know how to do anything non-trivial with it. > ????? 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. Many sites, including uunet, will trash a user@host.domain address if they are sending to a uucp site (uunet will desist if asked). Many others (not including uunet, according to them, I don't connect to them) will trash a user@host.domain address if it comes from a uucp node. I'm connected to a machine that does both. Many people have urged me to bitch, yell, and scream at them about this. I guess you understand more than most people why I haven't. I have 36 rewrite rules to clean up the addresses they send me. I need to add 9 more to handle addresses that should have been user%site@host.domain. >>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". Internet site admins: Is this part of the problem? It never occured to me because I've never run into this type of behavior. Karl: If this is a problem, perhaps you should include something on manners/netiquette in your document on getting registered. -- Terry Poot The McCall Pattern Company (uucp: ...!rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp) 615 McCall Road (800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041 Manhattan, KS 66502, USA