Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!edsews!roberts
From: roberts@edsews.EDS.COM (Ted Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: uunet vs uunet.uu.net
Summary: How does the logic work for an internet mailer with dial-up
Message-ID: <2806@edsews.EDS.COM>
Date: 11 Oct 88 16:03:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: edsews.2806
References: <731@mailrus.cc.umich.edu> <248@acheron.UUCP> <2521@epimass.EPI.COM> <734@mailrus.cc.umich.edu>
Organization: EDS/TSD - Troy, MI
Lines: 23

In article <734@mailrus.cc.umich.edu>, emv@mailrus.cc.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes:
> right.  And if you have both an asynchronous uucp connection to
> uunet and can reach it over the internet, they may be very different.
> i.e. from umix, mail to uunet!host!user will go via dial-up,
> but mail to uunet.uu.net!host!user will go over tcp/smtp.

Being a uucp only site, I'm a little unsure as to how the overall tcp/smtp
vs dial-up would work.  Ed implies here they have both capabilities with
respect to uunet and I would assume also with a number of other sites.
Is this to give mail capability to specific sites when the internet
connection between the sites is down?  If so, why not put logic into sendmail
(or whatever mailer you use) to check if the connection can be made through
the internet first?  You would have to know whether each dial-up connection
could be reached that way.  There would have to be some type of reference
file to match single name dial-up entries with fully resolved domain names
which could be a pain if you connect to a lot of sites (as mailrus does).
If this is not the reason for having both capabilities or is just one of
the reasons, what other reasons are there?

-- 
Ted Roberts                         |  My opinions are not necessarily those
EDS Technical Services Division     |  of my employer.  Does that mean I'm
UUCP: roberts@edsews.EDS.COM        |  wrong?