Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU!fair
From: fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: fidonet <-> usenet
Message-ID: <18304@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13-Apr-87 22:25:48 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.18304
Posted: Mon Apr 13 22:25:48 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Apr-87 03:03:14 EST
References: <149@4gl.UUCP> <3380002@nucsrl.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: USENET Protocol Police, Western Gateway Division
Lines: 21

In the referenced article, Jacob Gore <gore@nucsrl.UUCP> writes:
>
>The whole beauty of Internet addresses (as I see it) is that they hide the
>networking details.  What network(s) is "prep.AI.MIT.Edu" on?  (That's a
>rhetorical question (:-))
>
>"Smart" mailers can figure out how to send to a host without having a network
>name inplanted into the address.  It would be nice if Fido hosts could fit
>into this scheme.

I agree wholeheartedly, however, the other people working on the
gateway software don't agree with me. Among the problems with the idea
is that the existing hostnames from the FidoNet nodelist will not work
on the UUCP network or the ARPA Internet, which means that each FidoNet
host would have to pick a new name within the rules imposed by the UUCP
network and ARPA Internet. Somehow, I can't see all 1,500 sites doing
this unless it's forced on them from outside.

So for the moment we're stuck doing things with the net/node numbers...

	Erik E. Fair	ucbvax!fair	fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu