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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!graffiti!peter
From: peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Mail addressing and routing
Message-ID: <232@graffiti.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Sep-85 18:02:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: graffiti.232
Posted: Mon Sep 23 18:02:25 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 06:32:29 EDT
References: <644@adobe.UUCP> <169@graffiti.UUCP> <1617@peora.UUCP> <526@im4u.UUCP>
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 32

> 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.
> >
> >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.

(1) I never suggested that any one machine be "the" nameserver for anywhere.
    What's to stop 3 or 4 sites from taking on that task? Or 6? Or as many
    as are needed?

(2) Did I refer to an incident? All I said was that if too much mail goes
    through a given machine... and since you seem to be acting as the ad-hoc
    nameserver for central Texas you seemed to be a convenient example...
    then you will be told so and you can use someone else.

(3) I was further back in old messages than I thought, since I've seen other,
    more experienced, netters suggest pretty much the same thing since my
    suggestion seems to be redundant. However I would like to suggest that
    however domains/nameservers/etc are set up they use the only syntax that
    everyone understands... "!" syntax.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com