Xref: utzoo news.admin:15559 comp.mail.misc:5822 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!geoff From: geoff@world.std.com (Geoff Collyer) Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Bogus .UUCP addresses, was: Is UUNET going to upgrade? Message-ID: <1991Jun27.012559.19131@world.std.com> Date: 27 Jun 91 01:25:59 GMT References: <9106151249.48@rmkhome.UUCP> <1991Jun21.025904.3563@osh3.OSHA.GOV> <1991Jun21.214642.8746@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> <105@kas.helios.mn.org> Distribution: na Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 22 Joseph F. Young: > So, does this mean that you are going to bounce .BITNET addresses as well > as .UUCP addresses? If you do not wish your mailer to attempt to handle > such addresses, you should ship such messages an appropriate gateway host; > rejecting such mail does your users as well as the whole net a disservice > and is not going to do anything to solve the problems with the different > mail conventions among the major networks. Bitnet is a slightly different case than the UUCP network(s): Bitnet actually has a central organisation (several actually) and when Bitnet joined CREN, Bitnet promised that it was going to get rid of the ".BITNET" pseudo-domain by registering all its hosts in the Internet DNS (either with A or MX records) and getting those hosts to understand their new, Internet names (i.e. running mail systems instead of virtual card deck transports). Now that CSnet is vanishing, Bitnet officials have been heard to renege on these very sensible promises. I think the Bitnet administration should be held to the promises they made. Eventually dropping support for ".BITNET" might encourage them. -- Geoff Collyer world.std.com!geoff, uunet.uu.net!geoff