Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!rex!rouge!ralph!pja From: pja@ralph.Lafayette.LA.US (Pete Alleman) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Convincing Smail to use FQDNs Message-ID: <3932@ralph.Lafayette.LA.US> Date: 22 Aug 90 23:38:16 GMT References: <5IA5TY9@ggpc2.ferranti.com> <3890@ralph.Lafayette.LA.US> Organization: Home Sweet Home, Lafayette, LA Lines: 28 In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >*ARGH* >You misunderstand what I mean by "on the internet". I mean having a >dedicated line, rather than dialing up a real internet site that's >serving as an MX. It would help if there were (or I knew) the standard terminology. I once heard that "The Internet" was the collection of hosts with registered A records, whereas the "internet" was "The Internet" plus all those sites with registered MX records. >It's not that a site isn't *accessible* from the internet, it's that the >internet link might just be an expensive one for that site, and that an >overall cheaper route might be available using pathalias. As, for example, >from just about anywhere in Houston to any Houston site using UUNET or >PSI as an MX, since Houston has the second largest local calling area >in the U.S. (measured by number of customers), probably in the world. Now the real point. Some sites would prefer smail style uucp routes for their mail. On the other hand, I see in my routing database some 6 hop routes to "Internet" sites when my neighbor could deliver directly. Maybe we need to start putting more information into the uucp maps. It would be nice if pathalias could be set up to "do the right thing." -- Pete Alleman pja@ralph.lafayette.la.us