Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!cbosgd!mark
From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: domain names, mailers and Internet addressing
Message-ID: <416@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Oct-83 12:35:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.416
Posted: Tue Oct  4 12:35:31 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Oct-83 01:48:07 EDT
References: <18731@wivax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 53

This subject has come up before.  It's a murky area because of the following
problem:

What does a gateway call itself?  Consider the following example:
Host uw-beaver is on both the ARPANET and UUCP.  It is legally known
as both uw-beaver.ARPA and uw-beaver.UUCP.  So what name does it use
when generating its host address, as when it creates an outgoing mail
header?
a) uw-beaver.ARPA; a reply on the ARPANET will work fine.  But a reply
   on UUCP to uw-beaver.ARPA will be routed to the ARPANET gateway and
   over the ARPANET to uw-beaver.  There are political problems here -
   someone on UUCP has "made use of the ARPANET", and uw-beaver has caused
   this to happen.  uw-beaver is going to be afraid to let this happen.
b) uw-beaver.UUCP; this works fine on UUCP, but replies from the ARPANET
   will go to a UUCP gateway, and then over the much slower, less reliable,
   and more expensive (phone charges) UUCP net.  Not good.
c) uw-beaver.ARPA or uw-beaver.UUCP, depending on where the message is
   going; in general, you don't know where it's going - in Usenet, it may
   be going both places.  Ditto for a mailing list - if the mailing list
   is on another machine, you have no idea who in what domain will get it.
   Also, you may be on another host at uw on the same LAN as uw-beaver,
   and not have enough information to fill in the blank.  Finally, consider
   published addresses, such as business cards.
d) uw-beaver, letting each domain fill in their own name; (this is in fact
   what they are doing now).  The problems with this are obvious - it only
   works as long as the host is in every domain in the world, which won't
   last very long.

The reply from the powers that be on the ARPANET basically said that in the
long run, such sites probably should call themselves things like
uw-beaver.UUCP because on the ARPANET, a nameserver will realize that
this is the same as uw-beaver.ARPA and send it over the ARPANET.

It is unclear whether they will eventually allow a .UUCP top level domain.
There is a set of requirements that will have to be met, including a
responsible person keeping a master list and a nameserver on the Internet
that has an up-to-date list of sites and how to get to each.  There is hope
for this but nothing firm yet.  Another possibility (one I don't like) is
to make UUCP a non-top level domain, e.g. .UUCP.ARPA or .UUCP.Berkeley.ARPA.
Another possibility the powers have suggested (and I am opposed to) is to
make Usenet a top level domain.

In any case, for Usenet purposes, if you're running 2.10 news you are generating
a From line in Internet syntax, whether you define INTERNET locally or not.
INTERNET defines whether your mailers understand Internet syntax, and controls
how your reply command works.  It does not control how your news goes out.
In theory, either .ARPA or .UUCP should work, subject to the above weirdness.
Any mailer that claims to understand Internet syntax should understand either
.UUCP or .ARPA, although since .UUCP is not officially sanctioned most sites
on the ARPANET do not currently understand .UUCP.  But we have to call ourselves
something.

	Mark Horton