Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Imminent Death of This Thread Predicted Message-ID: <26A738A8.725B@tct.uucp> Date: 20 Jul 90 17:00:24 GMT Organization: ComDev/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 36 A long time ago, I started the "Death of UUCP Zone" thread. I'm not sure that was a good idea. Anyway, the discussion has gotten way out of hand. Many seem intent on making their points. Few seem to be reading or learning. Perhaps we could reach some conclusions [ha! -ed] if we were to make clear what points we're arguing. * Is source routing necessary? * Will source routing always be necessary? * In the transition from Internet transport (SMTP) to or from UUCP transport, should a gateway mailer change the format of the message *envelope* address? Should it change the format of the message *header* address(es)? Why? * If UUCP is considered merely a mail transport medium, why not leave RFC822 addresses intact even when a message is sent via UUCP? If UUCP is considered to be a separate network, why is the NIC busily registering UUCP-only sites? * Given that the RFC822 syntax for source routing has been obsoleted, and assuming that source routing will be necessary for some time to come, what syntax should be used for source routing? Is there a reason not to use bang paths? * Does the Internet DNS have delusions of grandeur in presuming to know about *every* mail domain, even those which aren't on the Internet? [1/2 :-)] Perhaps these questions will help posters recast their arguments into more rational reasoning, instead of the impassioned cries of "That's broken!" and "That's not fair!" that keep cropping up. -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT ,