Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!mcnc!xanth!john
From: john@xanth.UUCP (John Owens)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: dynamic routing for UUCP mail
Message-ID: <1818@xanth.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Aug-87 21:41:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: xanth.1818
Posted: Mon Aug  3 21:41:44 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Aug-87 00:41:55 EDT
References: <915@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va.
Lines: 55
Xref: mnetor comp.mail.uucp:739 comp.mail.misc:457

In article <915@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
> Now consider the following possibility for smail.  This assumes that all
> UUCP sites are running smail (not currently true but feasible in the near
> future)

Sorry, but I don't think so.  There are plenty of sites that are
well-maintained and managed, with reaseonable system managers who are
interested in communicating with the rest of the world, and are still
not running smail or anything like it.  It is not likely that the vast
majority of sites who do not have these advantages will ever do so.

It's an important design goal (as far as I can tell) of smail and the
UUCP Maps that dumb uucp sites be able to be used as routes.

> The only obvious problem I see would be caused by the existence of
> duplicate host names;  but since the UUCP Project apparently accepts
> map entries for hosts with conflicting names, I think it's a safe bet
> that this is not a significant problem.

This is still a problem.  Although the UUCP Project will reject an
entry for a name that already exists, there's no way they can keep
people from listing some machine in their maps that doesn't have a map
entry but duplicates a registered site.  (There's no way to tell that
the site listed isn't the "real" one.)  Case in point - look at our
map entry (.odu.edu); we talk to a machine "popeye", but it's not the
one at AT&T registered with the UUCP Project.  We just put a comment
to that effect and do *not* list this "popeye" in our connectivity
data, but more naive people would readily do so.

> QUESTION:  Are there any unexpected pitfalls in this?

Yes - I think it's unworkable to do something that is incompatible
with the rest of the world without being very careful.  For example:

	you!me!someoneelse!x+y!user

let's say you and me and x and y are all "smart" about your "+" idea,
but someoneelse isn't.  It tries to uux x+y!rmail user and it fails.
Or it's too smart for its own good and maybe the mail gets through but
the To: address had been rewritten
	To: user@x+y.UUCP
or something like this.

In summary, I don't see that the disadvantages are troublesome enough
or the advantages are worthwhile enough for the headaches this will
cause.

Thanks for the suggestion, though - we wouldn't be where we are now
without suggestions and discussions like these!


-- 
John Owens		Old Dominion University - Norfolk, Virginia, USA
john@ODU.EDU		old arpa: john%odu.edu@RELAY.CS.NET
+1 804 440 4529		old uucp: {decuac,harvard,hoptoad,mcnc}!xanth!john