Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!minnie!chris
From: chris@minnie.UUCP (Chris Grevstad)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: another reason not to route uucp ! format paths
Message-ID: <390@minnie.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Jan-87 18:03:40 EST
Article-I.D.: minnie.390
Posted: Sat Jan 31 18:03:40 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Feb-87 01:46:18 EST
References: <14396@amdcad.UUCP> <613@cdx39.UUCP> <2576@phri.UUCP> <14481@amdcad.UUCP> <619@cdx39.UUCP>
Reply-To: chris@minnie.UUCP (Chris Grevstad)
Organization: Frobozo Items Co. Inc. Ltd.
Lines: 30
Xref: mnetor comp.mail.headers:124 comp.mail.uucp:225

jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers) says:
>> ... 
>> I realize having non-unique uucp node names is a problem and
>> everything should be domainized ...
> ...
> ...
>Uucp is, after all, used for a lot more than email.  Even with
>intelligent mail routers installed everywhere (which is still
>not too close to realization), people would still be making
>little, temporary links and running uucp across it for purposes
>like downloading binaries and uuxing them.  Requiring that users
>first spend several orders of magnitude more time consulting a
>name authority is not realistic.
>

Of course it is used for more than email.  You are making a useless point
since the issue of the actual workings of UUCP is not germane to this dis-
cussion.  UUCP knows nothing about domains and addresses and probably never
will.  All it knows about is paths.  As far as mail is concerned, UUCP is just
a transport protocol, ignorant of the application layer's needs and intentions.
Mail is the entity that needs to know about domains and addresses (if you are
a domainist and if you aren't then this entire discussion is of no interest).

-- 
	Chris Grevstad
	{sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!chris
	ihnp4!nrcvax!chris

Don't let the sunshine spoil your rain,
Just stand up and complain.