Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.08 10/3/83; site psuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!akgua!psuvax!jdi
From: jdi@psuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Area-code as uucp domains
Message-ID: <426@psuvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Jan-84 22:54:29 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax.426
Posted: Tue Jan 24 22:54:29 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jan-84 08:24:50 EST
References: <325@hogpc.UUCP> <173@lzmi.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 55

I think we're missing a crucial point of domains here.  Domains are (in my
opinion, baised at best) primarily intended to reduce the neccessity for
each site on Usenet to maintain a database routing system (to know how to
get to other sites).

The idea is that if you send something to 'foo@bar.PA' all YOUR mailer must
know how to do is to get the message to a site in the PA domain.  After that
the site you've passed it to in domain PA routes it to site bar.

This would mean that any particular site would only need 2 small routing files:
    -- one to tell how to get messages to domains
    -- one to tell how to get messages around INSIDE our own domain


On a related issue, here at Psu we're writing a mail-routing system.  In our
opinion any site should be able to optimize a route.

Example:  Mr. Naive sends a message to 'akgua!cbosgd!allegra!psuvax!joe'
   Site 'akgua' gets this message and says "hmm, we're connected to site
   psuvax directly, let's bypass this garbage and send it to them directly"

Is this the correct thing to do?  I think there are a couple of issues
involved.
    1: Absolute routes.  In my view these are used mostly for testing
       purposes and other such special circumstances.  Should the whole
       net try to support these?

    2: Return addresses.  The problem in the above example might be that
       akgua talks to psuvax, BUT psuvax doesn't talk to akgua.  This could
       be avoided by a couple means, but I'm not really sure it's even 
       neccessary.  Consider that a messages sent back OUT from psuvax
       would NOT simply reply back through akgua, it would be routed 
       through a more appropriate link automatically

	3: Mailer smartness.  Here the question is "Who wants to update a site's
	   routing tables to be able to TELL who we should send mail to?"  Well,
	   I think all of us doing a little work is something better than
	   cbosgd!ksh doing a LOT of work.


Anyway, we'd like to solicit comments/hints/suggestions about just what
philosophies/disciplines a router should follow.  In addition we're just
about at the Beta-test stage for our mail router, and we'd like to ask for
one or two sites to test it for us.  This would entail having a temporary
(or permanent) uucp or other network connection to 'psuvax', and having
some time and patience.

Sorry about the length of what was to be a 15 line message, but I've been
wondering just what others think of Internet format vs. bangs.

-- 
Spoken:	John Irwin
AT&T:	814-237-5068
Net:	jdi@psuvax1.BITNET jdi@penn-state.CSNET
UUCP:	{akgua, allegra, cornell, ihnp4, burdvax}!psuvax!jdi