Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!wb3ffv!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake
From: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted
Summary: One man's alternative view of smart mailers, address formats, rfc's
Keywords: address formats, pathalias, uucp
Message-ID: <100@raysnec.UUCP>
Date: 10 Jul 90 15:47:55 GMT
References: <1990Jun28.164938.23367@DSI.COM> <KARL.90Jun28154651@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> <3008.268b1e9a@mccall.com> <26669@ditka.UUCP> <7871@lynx.UUCP>
Reply-To: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Distribution: na
Organization: IRS - ACI Project Office
Lines: 35

In article <7871@lynx.UUCP> m5@lynx.uucp (Mike McNally) writes:
>As a relative novice to the strange world of electronic mail
>management, I'm not quite sure of what the "politically correct"
>sentiment is towards the maintenance of the pathalias-style maps.  Is

	Some of us in the uucp-only world have done very well, thank you,
	by relying on the basic uucp file transfer mechanism enhanced by
	pathalias-supporting smart mailers at the FRONT end to get where
	we want to go.

	Personally, I could care less what is "politically correct".
	Those who remember Pirsig's classic "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
	Maintenance" recall the importance of pursuing "that which is "good"
	rather than "that which is true". For many, pathaliasing works.

	As to the address formats, there are really only two that could
	remotely be considered "intuitive", viz:

		user@sitename	(specified user AT specified sitename)
		site!...!site!user	(reach user by following this path)

	Logical domain constructs (user@site.x.y.z) resemble the first
	format, but don't do so in an intuitive fashion.  At the next
	level (i.e. becoming somewhat less intuitive)

		site!...!site!user@knownsite (reach user by following this
			path once you reach a known site)

	All the rest, especially including the awful % character are merely
	hacks. Please don't bother quoting RFCs to me. "Request for Comments"
	does not qualify as Standard in my book. The only real standard is
	X.400, which is intended to integrate DISsimilar environments. The
	more presumptuous out there should recognize that people and
	organizations differ in both vision and strategic goals, and will
	respond accordingly.