Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip:16526 comp.mail.sendmail:3371 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!barnett From: barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.mail.sendmail Subject: Re: More problems with sendmail/IDA and DECnet Message-ID: Date: 14 Jun 91 14:53:39 GMT References: <1991Jun11.173526.15436@njitgw.njit.edu> <1991Jun11.182958.18722@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1991Jun11.223410.4007@solbourne.com> kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes: >I disagree - there's no problem sending back (properly allocated) >numbers if someone queries for them, regardless of whether they are >reachable or not. I would have no problem getting back a 3.a.b.c >address were I to ask for the IP address of grymoire.crd.ge.com. Well, I may be missing the fine points, but I believe NYSERNET, et. al. do not like to see any packets addressed to the 3.* network. This causes unnecessary traffic, and people monitor such packets and let us know if we are "leaking" anything when we should not be doing so. If we make the 3.* addresses available (i.e. "A" Records) while advertising a "*.ge.com MX record to crdgw1.ge.com on its Class C network, we could cause a lot of problems on the Internet. I believe. -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crdgw1.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnett