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: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted Message-ID: <26A73A3C.72AA@tct.uucp> Date: 20 Jul 90 17:07:07 GMT References: <26A4DCA7.16B1@intercon.com> Organization: ComDev/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 20 According to amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker): >In article , peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da >Silva) writes: >> I'd much rather send mail for "splut.conmicro.com" to >> "sugar.hackercorp.com" via a local phone call than to "uunet.uu.net". > >So do it. Well, of course, we do. But to do so, our MTAs perforce do source routing. We put bang paths in our envelopes and keep the headers RFC822. If only intervening sites would LEAVE THE HEADERS ALONE, everything would be fine. Another point to be made from the "splut/sugar" example is that the DNS and MX records aren't the be-all and end-all of E-Mail addressing. There's still a need for the UUCP maps, and until everyone (and I do mean *everyone*) is on the Internet, that need will continue. -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT ,