Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!mcdchg!chinet!les
From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted
Message-ID: <1990Jul16.202721.271@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 16 Jul 90 20:27:21 GMT
References: <1990Jul10.133026.18326@terminator.cc.umich.edu> <1990Jul11.204251.6990@chinet.chi.il.us> <apqzpx.h2i@wang.com>
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Lines: 26

In article <apqzpx.h2i@wang.com> fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) writes:
>les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>> Always saying user@domain is not a solution
>> if you assume that the intermediate uucp hops run out-of-the-box AT&T
>> rmail.  Even if user@domain is valid and what the user says, the
>> local mail has to generate a path to the domain gateway. 

>This is optimizing for broken sites at the expense of working sites.  We've
>had several RFCs and gigabytes of text in this newsgroup saying what UUCP
>sites should be doing, and lots of us are doing the right thing (I think).

Should we storm AT&T and burn the source to rmail or just quietly go
on in the belief that everyone using it is doing the wrong thing and
should be punished by shunning them?

>Is it really worth working so hard to give life-support to broken
>configurations, when it makes things worse for up-to-date configurations?

This attitude does a lot to explain the popularity of using fax machines
for anything important even when revisions need to be retyped.  Most
of our communications outside of the organization are with attmail or
BITNET users, and I don't care if they have up-to-date configurations
or not (what is that, anyway, X.400?).

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us