Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!caip!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!mark
From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Domains: Multiple names OK?
Message-ID: <2502@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Sep-86 13:48:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2502
Posted: Wed Sep  3 13:48:27 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Sep-86 21:28:12 EDT
References: <566@mecc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 23

Yes, it's possible to have more than one name.  cbosgd will answer to
cbosgd, cbosgd.UUCP, cbosgd.ATT.UUCP, and cbosgd.ATT.COM.  You do have
to pick one primary name which you use on outgoing mail, but there's
no reason you can't have other names (even nicknames.)  There is an
effort at the NIC to discourage nicknames, but there's no denying
that you have to support the old names for awhile on upward compatibility
grounds.  And most hosts answer to a physical name (.UUCP, .BITNET,
.CSNET, or .ARPA) address in addition to an organizational name
(.EDU, .COM, .GOV, etc.)

You can argue that since .UUCP doesn't exist (in the eyes of the NIC)
that it doesn't count.  The same argument can be made for .BITNET
and .CSNET.  But .ARPA does exist, and so it does have to work.
(And it does work just fine.)

It is fair to state that names other than the primary name should be
viewed as upward compatibility support which eventually go away.
This applies to hosts that move their names in the tree due to a
reorganization (splitting of a subdomain, for example) as well as
motion toward the organizational names.  Names like "cbosgd" should
be viewed as abbreviations for the full name, not nicknames.

	Mark