Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mecc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!dicomed!mecc!sewilco From: sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Mail routing -- problems showing up Message-ID: <361@mecc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 23-Sep-85 15:01:05 EDT Article-I.D.: mecc.361 Posted: Mon Sep 23 15:01:05 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 01:09:57 EDT References: <3018@nsc.UUCP> <2875@topaz.ARPA> <536@down.FUN> <686@umd5.UUCP> <360@im4u.UUCP> <165@graffiti.UUCP> <508@im4u.UUCP> <582@down.F23 Sep 85 19:01:05 GMT Reply-To: sewilco@.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Organization: MN Ed Comp Corp, St. Paul, MN Lines: 46 Keywords: UUCP UUMAIL domain RFC822 map central Summary: You not get all your mail if UUMAIL domain name is duplicate. In article <582@down.FUN> honey@down.FUN (Peter Honeyman) writes: >john wonders > ... how it is that the huge UUCP map that current UUCP source > routing requires is not centralized but domains would have to > be centralized.... >it's simple. domains impose an authority structure on a network of >computers, while uucp routers make no such requirement. As with everything on UUCP, RFC822 UUCP centralization is only by influential sites agreeing on standards. The great advantages of RFC822 are globality of addresses and that only the sites sharing the same level of domain/subdomain routing need to agree on standard names. Even without a name registry, merely limiting the definition from the present global names will greatly reduce chance of name conflicts. The sites which pass messages between domains will have to agree on domain names. Penalty for not doing so is loss of mail. The sites which pass messages between subdomains will have to agree on subdomains. Penalty for not doing so is loss of mail. The sites which pass messages between sites will have to agree on names of those sites. Penalty for not doing so is loss of mail. RFC822 duplicate site names are impossible on ARPAnet due to the central registry. On UUCP (the .UUMAIL domain?) duplicate names are possible, but need site and subdomain addresses to match in order to be duplicates. UUCP domain-oriented mailers should obey the domain and subdomain information first when passing mail in the direction of a site without a direct link. With the current UUCP routing, a duplicate site name ON THE MAP: Pathalias might be confused and pick route to wrong one. IN THE NET: A site which rewrites paths may pick route to wrong one. While with RFC822 addresses, a duplicate site or domain name ON THE MAP: Less likely due to reduced conflicts in subdomains, but still possible. Same problems as current Pathalias, though new route-finding program should only find paths to subdomains. IN THE NET: The wrong site could only be chosen if the duplicate sites are within the same subdomain. -- Scot E. Wilcoxon Minn. Ed. Comp. Corp. circadia!mecc!sewilco 45 03 N / 93 15 W (612)481-3507 {ihnp4,uwvax}!dicomed!mecc!sewilco Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com