Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!gds
From: gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: The truth about allegra
Message-ID: <5455@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 6-Oct-85 00:32:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.5455
Posted: Sun Oct  6 00:32:48 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Oct-85 07:21:30 EDT
References: <5202@allegra.UUCP> <10540@ucbvax.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT Lusers and Hosers Inc., Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 22

I think it's interesting that examples offered of domain routes are
almost identical to those which normal uucp routes already take.  I'll
bet if allegra took statistics on which destination sites they were
relaying mail to, and which source sites the mail was originating from,
the destination sites would be those who fall into Jordan's idea of what
atl.uucp would be, and the sources would be machines which do not have
routes directly to machines in atl.uucp but use allegra as a common mail
relayer.

Now, what is the *real* issue here?  If there is some sort of problem
with allegra relaying mail to other sites then maybe we ought to address
it, but if there isn't, and since allegra is relaying mail to those
sites anyhow, *why not* call the sites which allegra talks to atl.uucp
(from ucbvax or any other site's perspective), and address them as such?
It's not costing allegra any more money to identify sites it talks to as
atl.uucp.
-- 
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.

Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@mit-eddie.mit.edu