Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!jer From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Mail routing -- problems showing up Message-ID: <1616@peora.UUCP> Date: Wed, 11-Sep-85 08:54:33 EDT Article-I.D.: peora.1616 Posted: Wed Sep 11 08:54:33 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 09:46:26 EDT References: <1383@peora.UUCP> <9546@ucbvax.ARPA> <1423@peora.UUCP> <170@graffiti.UUCP> Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl. Lines: 60 [The article the following posting-excerpt comments on was my article saying that I felt that the all-! routing scheme wasn't viable in the real world, because you had to know all other route-specifying languages.] > Why do you have to know this? Just convert it into *your* routing language & > pass it on until it hits the next gateway. Remember I said "in the real world". Theoretically you don't, of course. However, as I pointed out, there presently EXIST gateways that don't really care atall about UUCP (I will risk giving an example, and say the Mailnet gateway, eventhough my last concrete example turned out to have been fixed by the time I gave it; since I've been unable to get UUCP mail through the Mailnet gateway successfully (outgoing) for over a year). The basic principle here is that the more often you rewrite the routing or address information, the more probability of error exists. Thus it is beneficial to have a route-specifying syntax which minimizes rewriting. A strictly left-right syntax within the UUCP transport mechanism provides this. A strictly right-left syntax within RFC822-supporting mailers also provides this. More exactly, within UUCP, the ! syntax provides this; with the RFC method, @ provides this. The only place this is a problem is when these collide: for example, if I on my IBM PC want to send (using the @-precedence syntax) to samsmach!sam@samsneigh.UUCP. Because my PC will currently translate this, in the process of sending it to our nameserver, to peora!samsmach!sam@samsneigh.UUCP, which is wrong. Now, the real reason here that this is a problem is not the syntax per se, although a stronger syntax (and note that the RFC's method, with its simple quote, isn't strong enough to support this either) would allow you to write something like peora!(samsmach!sam@samsneigh.UUCP). The real problem is that samsmach is unmapped. But the above problem aside (the above problem would be resolvable by a simple "break" character in the UUCP path, I think, though I haven't tested that yet in our experimental nameserver), the only problem that's been brought up so far was the "ambiguity" between ! and @. And, as I've said, that's just because people insist on routing everything through Sendmail, which indeed appears incapable of handling this at present. If you use Sendmail only for inter-network routing, and for resolution of addresses into routes, then things work fine. These opinions of mine are not idle speculation; we do have a working name- server here, which as far as I am concerned can be public-domain, but which is changing too fast right now, and contains some hardcoded strings besides, to dump it out onto net.sources; and getting adjacent sites to test it is like pulling hen's teeth. But I do feel this method works. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Nalgvzr gbzbeebj, gur cubar'yy evat, naq lbh'yy or ba lbhe jnl. Onpx ubzr va Buvb, gurl jba'g oryvrir lbh..."