Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Imminent death of UUCP Zone predicted Message-ID: <15697@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Date: 24 Jul 90 00:31:10 GMT References: <26A76773.3660@intercon.com> <720@logicon.com> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Lines: 26 In article <720@logicon.com> Makey@Logicon.COM (Jeff Makey) writes: >How do you know which is the appropriate host? Letting uunet handle >mail to unrecognized domains and unregistered hosts is nothing more >than a cop-out, as uunet must maintain the routing information that >you don't. No, it's more than a cop-out. UUNET pays people to do it right, and they do it in one place. I trust them more than I trust a thousand twisty little sites out there trying to keep maps up to date and in synch. Have you noticed the death of the long bang path? Read signatures. The MOST you see these days -- usually as an alternative to a FQDN -- is {bigsite1,bigsite2}!site3!site4!user i.e., two hops off the backbone. And even that's rare as more and more people register with the NIC and/or sign up with outfits like UUNET. The importance of pure UUCP route optimization today is largely local. If every site in the country maintained pathalias just two hops deep and smart-host'ed everything else, you'd never notice the difference. -- 1955-1975: 36 Elvis movies. | Tom Neff 1975-1989: nothing. | tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM