Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!werner
From: werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Domains: Multiple names OK?
Message-ID: <3920@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Sep-86 21:54:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.3920
Posted: Thu Sep  4 21:54:53 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Sep-86 00:02:09 EDT
References: <566@mecc.UUCP> <2502@cbosgd.UUCP>
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 71
Summary: NIC's effort to discourage is having undesirable side-effects

In article <2502@cbosgd.UUCP>, mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes:
> 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
> 
Recently, the aliases SEISMO and MCC were dropped from the HOSTS-table
distributed by NIC, which made me quite unhappy as now I have remember to
type SEISMO.CSS.GOV and MCC.COM everytime ... now this may seem an insignifi-
cant effort, but you just wait until you have to type those darn stupid
domains on every single address ....  And I thought that the computer was
there to make life easier ???  Of course, there was no notification of this
change anywhere that you might expect the average user to read, and figuring
out what was expected as an address instead of MCC or SEISMO wasn't of just
seconds for anyone, not even minutes.  If this is kept up by NIC, I can just
see a lot of unhappy people having messages delayed, bounced back, and having
to waste time to figure out what domain is needed, every time another site
has their good-old basic name removed from the table.  It's ok for mailers
of 2 different machines talking to each other to express addresses with all
the domain-glory, but what did users have to be bothered with this ???!!!

Of course, there is the problem when 2 or more sites choose the same nick-name,
but that should have been solved by resulting in a warning with the different
sites getting listed in a menu to choose from.  It would also help if the mailer
on this and other machines would be able to handle a personal alias-list
for sites, as well as for users.  But then again, I'm not sure it can be
called progress if NIC's removal of the nick-name SEISMO would result in
every user adding SEISMO = SEISMO.CSS.GOV to the personal alias-list.
>
> 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.)
>
I won't even comment on that stupid ARPA policy of "sticking the head in the
sand .....
> 
> 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

Whereas it is quite ok for any change to occur that the mailer-software
worries about, it is just as important that such changes are transparent
to the user who never should even need to become aware of such changes.

Maybe it is just nostalgia, but my experience with Email 2+ years ago used
to be quite satisfactory and reliable - but ever since this change-over
to the domain-style addressing has begun, rare are the days when I don't have
to waste extra time "hand-knitting" an acceptable Email-path because my mailer
can't deal with the reply-address contained in a message, or because some site
changed their address somehow "domain-style".  Not to mention the time lost
taken up by a message bouncing around the system until it brought back to my
attention as "undeliverable" ...

I know, some of the above mentioned problems have to do with the mailer on this
machine not being "the latest model" (or me not knowing all the fancy new
features), but I tell you, it is no fun, switching machines, OS, and type of
net several times a day, each one with it's own "particularities" caused
by the new domain-style addresses ....

	Cheers,		---Werner

(I've been meaning to get this of my chest for quite a while now ....	
	.... I do feel better now that I've aired my frustrations !!!)