Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oddjob.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!oddjob!matt From: matt@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Matt Crawford) Newsgroups: net.news.config Subject: Re: name change Message-ID: <604@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 17:05:37 EST Article-I.D.: oddjob.604 Posted: Thu Feb 14 17:05:37 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 05:29:04 EST References: <484@digi-g.UUCP> Reply-To: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) Distribution: net Organization: U. Chicago: Astronomy & Astrophysics Lines: 30 In article dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >In article <484@digi-g.UUCP> dan@digi-g.UUCP (Dan Messinger) writes: >||Oops! It appears that there are two systems in the world with the >||same name. > >This silliness exemplifies the problems we'll continue to have >as the net grows, if people insist on picking names which are >unrelated to their organization. > . . . . >Please, people. It may be fun to have cute names, but the net is >hard enough to find your way around as it is. Couldn't you use >"digi-snow" or "digi-white"? Or (horrors) "digi-at"? >-- Haven't you heard? Mark Horton, on behalf of the "UUCP Project", wants us all to keep our host names down to 6 characters. Why? I don't really know, but I understand that a certain large unix vendor sold a binary-only uucp implementation which only allows six char- acters. This could be coincidence of course. Meanwhile, AT&T-BL, through their gateway site ihnp4 (one of the truly greatest boons to the net) wants sites such as "gargoyle" *not* to truncate their uucp name at all. What, pray tell, is the party line in this matter? And who are the party members? How about if each site is allowed only a name which would be accepted by its link editor as a valid global symbol? :-( _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt