Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 (Fortune 01.1b1); site graffiti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!graffiti!peter
From: peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Mail routing -- problems showing up
Message-ID: <165@graffiti.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 10:30:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: graffiti.165
Posted: Tue Sep  3 10:30:33 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 08:04:14 EDT
References: <3018@nsc.UUCP> <2875@topaz.ARPA> <536@down.FUN> <686@umd5.UUCP> <360@im4u.UUCP>
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 32

> UUCP requires the user to supply source routing.  Practically no other
> widely-spread network does.  Not the ARPA Internet, not BITNET, not the
> XEROX Internet, not PUP nets, not the Australian ACSNET, etc.  You can
> *do* source routing in the ARPA Internet, but hardly anybody ever
> does:  not because the syntax to do it is arcane (which it is), but
> because there's no need.
>
> Why should the defects of UUCP be foisted on the rest of the world,
> which has gotten along quite well without them for many years?
> -- 
> John Quarterman

Because (1) UUCP is changing too fast to keep a map intact: the only way
to reliably generate a path to a given site is to use the return path, and
even then you have to hope that a few cute mailers aren't there to "help"
you on your way. (2) UUCP uses a wide variety of software and hardware
configurations with no central government. Because of the ! syntax it needs
no central government. Because of the wide variety of configurations there
is really no way to ensure that everyone has software that can deal with
domains without some kind soul writing a public domain mailer that is portable
to machines as small as an LSI-11. Netnews won't even compile on an LSI-11.
Pathalias won't run. (3) We're not trying to force anything down anyone's
throats. We don't require that ARPA and BITNET and their friends stick with
any old-fashioned arrangement. They all have some sort of government to take
care of it. We don't. Just make .UUCP a domain and you don't have to change
a line of code. (4) Why should the centralised organisation of ARPA be foisted
on UUCP, which has gotten along without it for many years.

I agree with down!honey. There is no way that you're going to get this mob
of individualists to agree on anything coercively. Sorry about the Libertarian
rhetoric but I've just been reading L. Neil Smith's latest and my text gener-
ator is still configured for it.