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!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!graffiti!peter
From: peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Precedence of operators
Message-ID: <337@graffiti.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 00:08:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: graffiti.337
Posted: Mon Oct 21 00:08:14 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Oct-85 06:45:41 EDT
References: <593@down.FUN> <10476@ucbvax.ARPA> <12317@Glacier.ARPA> <273@graffiti.UUCP> <1132@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 60

> In article <273@graffiti.UUCP>, peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
> > The only problem I see with the bang scheme is that sites
> > are ignoring it. If they gave it precedence over ARPA and other non-bang
> > syntax it'd work fine...
> > 
> > 	If (the address contains BANGS &&
> > 	    I am adjacent to the next site in the path)
> > 		Send it to them;
> > 
> > 	Use whatever heuristics you want to handle ambiguous paths, but if
> > you get a UUCP message that is addressed to the site next door to you, DON'T
> > look any further! 
> 
> I can't agree.  This may be a religious debate, but the use of "Bang 
> precedence" is what causes all sorts of ambiguities in the system.

Why?

> If I say
> 	pyramid!bugs@sri-unix.ARPA
> I want it delivered to the system that is one hop away from sri-unix
> on the ARPA net.  This is a standard, recognizable address that
> all ARPA sites and many UUCP sites can handle.

That's fine. If you're not adjacent to pyramid then, by the algorithm above,
you use local mailing heuristics which presumably use ATSIGN precedence.
Everything works out fine. I don't see your problem.

> Now if I'm at 
> 	gould9!cacimv!joel@NOSC.ARPA,
> so what?  Just let me take the address
> 	pyramid!bugs@sri-unix.ARPA
> and pass it on to gould9 as is.  Gould9 does the same towards NOSC,
> even though it is a UUCP-only site without ARPA access.
> 
> [Watch my lips: THE ADDRESS IS NOT REWRITTEN]

Did I say anything about rewriting addresses? Since gould9 doesn't have any
direct UUCP links to pyramid it should go by local rules & pass it off to
whoever can handle it. Sending it off to .ARPA is a reasonable action. Watch
MY lips: IF YOU ARE ADJACENT TO THE NEXT UUCP SITE IN THE PATH, THEN ACT LIKE
A UUCP SITE. OTHERWISE (as in this case) DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO.

> In fact, NOSC can take the address as is, and hand it to SRI-UNIX
> as is. [THE ADDRESS IS NOT REWRITTEN].
> 
> This is the magical part about domains: they present an isotropic
> address space.  (Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls!)  No matter
> where you stick the mail message in, properly handled, it will
> arrive at its destination.

But .ARPA isn't a domain.

> But of course, if one site decides to turn this standard on its
> head, all hell breaks loose.

In UUCP the standard is BANG routing. As you say, if one site turns it on its
head, all hell breaks loose. I still don't understand what you don't like
about my article, apart from the fact that I like bang precedence in certain
carefully defined areas. What's the problem? We seem to be in basic agreement.