Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!jordan
From: jordan@ucbvax.ARPA (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: net.mail.headers
Subject: Re: RFC920 domains
Message-ID: <8066@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 00:36:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8066
Posted: Wed Jun 12 00:36:37 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 01:06:28 EDT
References: <918@sdcsvax.UUCP> <532@deepthot.UUCP>
Reply-To: jordan@ucbvax.UUCP (Jordan Hayes)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 17

Hmmm... seems like the UUCP community is taking this rfc920 stuff
a little too seriously. It doesn't seem to make much sense for UUCP
to even *try* to implement organizational domains. ARPA, on the other
hand, almost *requires* it at this point. What's wrong with making UUCP
a domain and then sub-domaining geographically under it? ARPA's routing
topology is *nothing* like UUCP's. C'mon, guys, take a hint from
the Aussies. No UUCP site administrator is going to give up calling
the sites that she/he has built up trust for over the last few years,
just because they aren't part of their domain anymore. UUCP is a
wholy different community, with different requirements and limitations.

The map even gives a good start as to how to break down UUCP. Hurrah
for ARPA if it can be a conceptual net -- it has the facilities. UUCP
DOESN'T. Make the best with what'cha got. UUCP still has phone
bills and increasingly lousy long distance connections to deal with.

/jordan