Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site im4u.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!im4u!jsq From: jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Mail addressing and routing Message-ID: <526@im4u.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 20:54:38 EDT Article-I.D.: im4u.526 Posted: Tue Sep 17 20:54:38 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 05:25:13 EDT References: <644@adobe.UUCP> <169@graffiti.UUCP> <1617@peora.UUCP> Reply-To: jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 26 In article <1617@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: (>> is quotes from Peter da Silva) >> If too much stuff is going through ut-sally, I get a nasty letter back & >> start sending stuff through ihnp4. Or through someone else. This way no- >> one NEEDS to take on an excess load. > >> I don't expect anyone to pay any attention to me, since I'm just a >> lowly peon who can't afford a machine big enough to compile pathalias >> on... but in case anyone has got this far, consider it... > >The scheme you have described is what I have been calling the "distributed >nameserver" scheme, which in MY "lowly peon" opinion, is the way to do it. >I disagree with the geographic sudomain scheme for cost reasons, but aside >from that, you have just described the routing string generated by a >nameserver when it routes a message to the next nameserver down the line. The incident he referred to did not involve a nameserver: it involved me trying to keep my system from being swamped. In other words, he's proposing manual routing by somebody other than the sender. Thank you very much, but I decline the privilege of being the manual nameserver for central Texas. Your scheme, on the other hand, is reasonable. -- John Quarterman, UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!jsq ARPA Internet and CSNET: jsq@sally.UTEXAS.EDU, formerly jsq@ut-sally.ARPA Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com