Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utah-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!utah-cs!donn From: donn@utah-cs.UUCP (Donn Seeley) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: uucp sitenames (6 letter uniqueness?!?) Message-ID: <3011@utah-cs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 26-Aug-84 15:26:33 EDT Article-I.D.: utah-cs.3011 Posted: Sun Aug 26 15:26:33 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 06:21:47 EDT References: <12818@sri-arpa.UUCP> Organization: University of Utah CS Dept Lines: 34 From: Lauren Weinstein As it turns out, the problem of long (> 6 or > 7) sitenames in the UUCP's that allow such names (when talking to other software that doesn't) can be fixed by clever additions of multiple sitename entries in the appropriate tables. However, it should be noted that the UUCP project plans to insist on 6 char uniqueness in sitenames for the immediate to middle future. This already would send my old workplace down the tubes. All the machines there are named sdchem[a-z] and depend on 7-character uniqueness to distinguish them. They've had these names for years. Do they suddenly fail to conform to the 'standard' because some NEW UUCP can't distinguish the sitenames? Even if existing sitenames which require 7-character uniqueness are permitted, why should new sites need a more stringent standard? It strikes me as unfair, especially when (as Lauren notes) work-arounds can be found for troublesome sites. I doubt Lauren means to be unfair here, but I really think the directory should be more liberal. I suggest that we either allow arbitrary-length sitenames and let the individual sites with routing problems decide how to handle them, or at worst settle for the (existing) 7-character standard. The site directory could if necessary flag entries that cause problems for known versions of UUCP (e.g., a site has 7 letters in its name, a site is not unique in 7 letters, a site has upper case in its name, this site can only handle 6 character unique sitenames, and so on) and the requisite routing software on each machine could then make decisions about how best to get mail where it needs to go. Does that sound reasonable? Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@utah-cs.arpa 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn