Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: UUPSI's new rules Message-ID: <_A6AX85@xds13.ferranti.com> Date: 22 Mar 91 15:54:51 GMT References: <1991Mar19.020431.28067@jpradley.jpr.com> <73552093@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 20 In article <73552093@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: > If PSI refuses to support true RFC1034 domains, they should not falsely > register cut-rate leaf sites with the NIC as full domains. It is > ludicrous to go ahead and post a wildcard record, then browbeat the > customer for having the audacity to use it. You're right, they shouldn't use wildcards. If they are this is highly bogus. It's easy enough to set up separate MXes for every site in a domain. > [UUPSI] keeps the alternative option -- geographically proximate sites > banding together to share the costs of a nonrestrictive joint feed from some > other supplier -- perpetually attractive. That's true, and I believe they're fully aware of that. They depend on the low front-end cost making this option less desirable than a fixed-rate leaf feed. For that matter, that "other supplier" might still be UUPSI... their higher priced services are still in the ballpark with UUNET. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"