Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!kitty!larry
From: larry@kitty.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.newsites
Subject: Re: Bogus new site entry, potomac
Message-ID: <1690@kitty.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Apr-87 16:51:44 EST
Article-I.D.: kitty.1690
Posted: Wed Apr  8 16:51:44 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Apr-87 08:28:43 EST
References: <473@potomac.ads.arpa> <16008@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Organization: Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, NY
Lines: 40
Keywords: mod.map, potomac, name collisions
Summary: Duplication of sitenames

In article <16008@amdcad.AMD.COM>, bandy@amdcad.AMD.COM (Andy Beals) writes:
> MORAL:
> People who give other folks uucp connections and news feeds should look in the
> maps *first* and tell new sites that they may not have names that people
> already have.

	I agree with you 100%!  However, the rest of the world does not seem
to be unanimous in holding this opinion.
	Some months ago we had a problem with one of our local machines,
``calico''.  It seems that another site had begin using the name ``calico'',
and we began receiving a lot of mail (mostly through seismo) for the other
site.  This was rather aggravating, since not only did we have to pay the
telephone charges for receiving the mail, but we also had to pay to return it!
	I sent mail to the "other" site on a path it appeared to be using
in some Net articles, with no response.  Finally, I placed a telephone call
to the SA at a large site that was feeding the "other" calico, and explained
my problem.  The response that I received was rather indifferent, and the
SA indicated that he saw no problem with a duplicate sitename as long as
the people at the "other" site included a proper routing address with their
articles and mail.
	I beg to differ, because many sites have mailers that will look in
the pathalias database - regardless of a specified routing.  Since there
has always been only one registered ``calico'' - our site - this still
presents a problem.
	I realize that there isn't much that I can do about a site that
simply insists upon duplicating an existing sitename - but perhaps
larger sites that handle uucp connections CAN exert some responsibility
in this type of situation.
	Yes, I know about domains.  But from what I see of the uucp world,
it will be a LONG time before domain-style addressing and associated
mailers will solve the problem in that fashion.
	And yes, I know about Harris's Lament; however, if one is clever,
there are many "cute" sitenames left.  Actually, in view of my fondness
toward cats, I always wanted to put up a site named ``pussy''.  Now,
THAT would be cute!  So far, I haven't had the chutzpah to do it...

<>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York
<>  UUCP:  {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rocksanne|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<>  VOICE: 716/688-1231        {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/
<>  FAX:   716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes}    "Have you hugged your cat today?"