Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted Message-ID: Date: 20 Jul 90 15:06:36 GMT References: <1990Jul16.202721.271@chinet.chi.il.us> <26A4DCA7.16B1@intercon.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 10 In article <26A4DCA7.16B1@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: > So do it. If you're running sendmail, it's easy, and if not, I'd be real > surprised if smail didn't also let you do it. If this decision is made > by the mailer, your users don't have to use bang-paths. I think we have a communications problem here. I'm not suggesting forcing users to use explicit routing. I was under the impression that you were opposed to the mail routing agent building explicit bang paths, and that you were in favor of breaking explicit routing to force sites to route mail via the domain name system. That, to me, is sheer lunacy. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U`