Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!jbs
From: jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
Subject: Re: fidonet <-> usenet
Message-ID: <5486@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 14-Apr-87 00:00:35 EST
Article-I.D.: eddie.5486
Posted: Tue Apr 14 00:00:35 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Apr-87 03:13:58 EST
References: <149@4gl.UUCP> <3380002@nucsrl.UUCP> <18304@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: jbs@eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal)
Distribution: world
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 17

In article <18304@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) writes:
>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.[...]
>[...]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.

The existance of a working, transparant, bidirectional, gateway between
UUCP and FidoNet (is that the correct capitalization?) would allow, but
not require, any FidoNet host to register with UUCP for both a domain
and a map entry.  Such a gateway would translate low-level (i.e. bang
format) UUCP addresses into Fido addresses.  In a sense, FidoNet would
become part of UUCP, similar to the way notes sites exist on Usenet.

Jeff Siegal