Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!ibmsupt.uucp!!steve From: steve@qe2.paloalto.ibm.com (Steve DeJarnett) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Who pays the bill? Message-ID: <1990Aug6.230109.4220@ibmpa> Date: 6 Aug 90 23:01:09 GMT References: <26A738A8.725B@tct.uucp> <65793@sgi.sgi.com> <7704@gollum.twg.com> Sender: news@ibmpa (news id) Reply-To: steve@ibmsupt.UUCP (Steve DeJarnett) Organization: IBM AWD Development, Palo Alto Lines: 53 In article <7704@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >In article <65793@sgi.sgi.com> vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes: >>In article , lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >>If you reduce the UUCP path >> "bionet!oracle!decwrl!sgi!oni.sgi.com!apple!user" >>into >> "bionet!apple!user" or "user@apple.com" >>then you have just gratuitously bounced someone's mail. > >So when putting that UUCP path out there make ABSOLUTELY DAMN sure >it doesn't say "apple", but the appropriate FQDN. Of course, then we get to the following problem. apple.sgi.com is a FQDN. Great. Now the Rabid Rerouters pop up, and say "great, a FQDN very near the end of the path (actually, at the end). Let's short-circuit to that." BOING! If apple.sgi.com isn't Internet-connected, and doesn't have anyone MX-ing for it, the mail bounces. Now, this is a worst-case analogy, but it does happen. I used to be a proponent of Rabid Rerouting (when I was the one modifying the sendmail.cf files on an Internet-connected machine). Now that I sit with an address that looks like it's Internet-connected, but is only connected to a corporate internal network (soon to be rectified with at least an MX record, but that's beside the point), I see things in a different light. I would love for Rabid Rerouting to work. However, until every workstation is IP-reachable (or at least has a host MX-ing for it), this isn't going to work (IMHO). >On the other hand.. you're right.. people shouldn't be looking >beyond the first site in the list because they really don't have >the right to interpret the rest of the path. And if they don't, then SGI's apple will never be seen by anyone who doesn't know how to deal with it, qe2.paloalto.ibm.com will never be seen by anyone who doesn't know how to deal with it, and the world will be a better place to live (well, maybe 2 out of 3 are true :-). >IF you put FQDN's into your path then there would be no chance >for confusion. Everybody would know it was your apple and, if >they were Rabidly Rerouting, would act accordingly. If they >were Rationally Rerouting (my definition of Rational == not looking >beyond the first hop) they would still work since you put out `sgi'. >If they route on the first FQDN, again, it will work since you'd >be putting out two FQDN's.. (given your example) Rational Rerouting should work. Rabid (at least for qe2's case) would fail (for the time being). Partially our fault, but partially yours also. Ain't this fun... ><- David Herron, an MMDF weenie, Steve DeJarnett Internet: ibmsupt!steve@uunet.uu.net IBM AWD Palo Alto UUCP: uunet!ibmsupt!steve (415) 855-3510 VNET: dejarnet at ausvmq These opinions are my own. I doubt IBM wants them.......