Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!mimsy!oddjob!gargoyle!att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!egisin
From: egisin@watmath.waterloo.edu (Eric Gisin)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Routing mail through Digital's sites
Message-ID: <20020@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: 21 Jul 88 14:20:23 GMT
References: <651@scovert.sco.COM> <30.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> <2761@ttrdc.UUCP> <616@bacchus.DEC.COM>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 23

In article <616@bacchus.DEC.COM>, reid@decwrl.dec.com (Brian Reid) writes:
> In article <3501@palo-alto.DEC.COM> vixie@palo-alto.DEC.COM (Paul Vixie) writes:
> >Yup.  No UUCP routing.  If you send mail to decwrl!xyzzy!person, then xyzzy
> >had better be one of...
> >
> >	a dotted internet domain, MX or A record known to the root named's
> >	an internal (decnet or SMTP) host
> >	a UUCP neighbor of decwrl
> >
> >...the one thing we don't do (yet) is find a path to "xyzzy" if they aren't
> >found in the above search path but are in the UUCP map.
> 
> And with a little luck, we never will. This kind of pseudo-AI belongs in user
> agents, not transport.


Another reason not to do it is that you have two independently managed
namespaces, the internal DEC hosts and the .UUCP hosts.
If decwrl!grot!user where routed to grot.uucp one day,
it might be routed to grot.dec.com the next day,
and Usenet users would never know about it since DEC doesn't
make their internal host namespace known to Usenet.

Routing decwrl!host.uucp!user is reasonable though.