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!decvax!pur-ee!inuxc!ihnp4!oddjob!matt From: matt@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Matt Crawford) Newsgroups: net.news.config Subject: Re: name change -- now about site names in general Message-ID: <606@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Sat, 16-Feb-85 18:29:41 EST Article-I.D.: oddjob.606 Posted: Sat Feb 16 18:29:41 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 17-Feb-85 06:30:36 EST References: <484@digi-g.UUCP> <604@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) Organization: U. Chicago: Astronomy & Astrophysics Lines: 67 A summary for those who do not wish to read the ~60 lines that follow: This is a discussion (bordering on a flame session) about some details of the proposed standards which have come out of the "UUCP Project". See also article <597@plus5.UUCP> for another criticism. Certainly it is a Good Thing that people are taking the trouble to organize the anarchy that is uucp (while leaving untouched the anarchy that is usenet!) it will be a Big Disappointment if the result of the project contains enough misfeatures that it is not widely adopted. In article smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) writes: >> From: matt@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Matt Crawford) >> 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. > >Do you think you could possibly control your paranoia for a while? The >six-character limit (which, by the way, is that the name be unique in >the first six characters, not that it be six characters only) came with >System V, about two years ago. That far antedates the UUCP project. That is my point exactly. The UUCP project seems to be catering to AT&T's system V implementation of uucp. In addition, the "UUCP Mail Transmission Format Standard" (hereafter "MTSF") by Mark Horton uses the phrase "6 letter UUCP [site] name", never saying that names might be longer if they are unique to 6 characters. Looking even further, The document "UUCP Subdomain Requirements" by Mark Horton and Karen Summers-Horton suggests, when choosing site names: "Plan for the day you have lots of machines, for example, ``framus-a'' or ``a.framus'' if your company name is Framus and your theme is letters of the alphabet, ..." Either the framus people have to break the rule or have to create a subdomain of one machine to allow for expansion later. >What the hell do you want Mark to do (and it's not just Mark, incidentally; >there was a large group involved in discussing the subject), pick a >solution that will break half the machines on the net? The Prime Directive >of the project was that no solution would be considered that demanded >universal co-operation, because we know damned well that we *can't* (not >won't, can't) get it. To quote the MTFS again: "(Note - if an intermediate site adds text such as ``system!'' to the front of a ``user@domain'' syntax address, ... this is a violation of the standard.)" No need to worry about breaking half the machines on the net -- 90% are already broken! It seems to me that the UUCP project will require some new software to be sent around for free. I also thought this was in fact intended to be done. Why not send out a uucp that is more flexible as part of the package? >The six-character truncation was a mistake. Everyone involved agrees. >So what did AT&T Bell Laboratories do? We fixed it. The new uucp (called >honey danber, for its authors) is what's being run on ihnp4, ulysses, cbosgd, >and a host of other sites. I'm told it's available to the outside world >now, through the usual AT&T Technologies licensing channels. For $5000 (source) according to a recent net article. _____________________________________________________ Matt University crawford@anl-mcs.arpa Crawford of Chicago ihnp4!oddjob!matt