Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!intercon!news From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted Message-ID: <269B82AE.415E@intercon.com> Date: 11 Jul 90 19:49:02 GMT References: <1990Jun28.164938.23367@DSI.COM> <3008.268b1e9a@mccall.com> <26669@ditka.UUCP> <7871@lynx.UUCP> <100@raysnec.UUCP> Sender: usenet@intercon.com (USENET The Magnificent) Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA Lines: 29 In article <100@raysnec.UUCP>, shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes: > 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) Fine so far. However, the second is not an address. It is a route. There are many mailers that blur the distinction, but it is there nonetheless. > Logical domain constructs (user@site.x.y.z) resemble the first > format, but don't do so in an intuitive fashion. On the internet, they are exactly equivalent. "site.x.y.z" is a unique name for a specific host, at least as far as the sending side is concerned. > 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) This is broken. This is not guaranteed to work, and is guaranteed not to work for many values of "knownsite" (any site I run, for example). The ability to tunnel UUCP paths through the Internet is a bug. -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation