Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!convex!killer!ames!hc!pprg.unm.edu!kurt
From: kurt@pprg.unm.edu (Kurt Zeilenga)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: What does "on the internet" mean -- to YOU?
Message-ID: <23668@pprg.unm.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 88 03:32:51 GMT
References: <1217@fig.bbn.com>
Reply-To: kurt@pprg.unm.edu (Kurt Zeilenga)
Organization: U. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 53

Me:
>The terms I prefer to use in the context of mail is "directly attached"
>"indirectly attached" to the Internet.   What we really need to do
>is get MX records for those hosts/sites not directly attached and blow
>off the UUCP maps all together....

All I was trying to say was that I wish UUCP and the UUCP maps would
just fade away.  That wish won't come true.  The folks which are stuck
using UUCP are just that, stuck with it.  Luckily, the price of
connecting to Internet is dropping quickly.  But don't get me wrong, UUCP
has and still does serve a purpose, I just would like to move to newer
and better things....

rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes on my statement above:
>Well, kinda.  It's hard to do.  The handful of Internet folks willing to
>be MX forwarders must be willing to take on hundreds of connections (how
>many does UNM forward for? :-).  Okay, this is an exaggeration.

You're right, it is an exaggeration.

>    The other downside is
>that an it tends to mean that there's ONLY ONE mail path to a
>site.

What?  The Domain Name System (DNS) supports multiple MX records
for any host or domain wildcard.  They do have metrics.  DNS
mailers DYNAMICALLY select the "best" one available, avoiding
down or unreachable exchangers.

Even if your statement were true, I would rather heavily rely on
one link from a site to its primary exchanger then rely on the
many links in a UUCP route.  This is because a site has direct
control over the state its link to its primary exchanger.

Everybody knows how map routing works, it just doesn't a good amount
of time.  The maps return poor or incorrect routes.  Sometimes
hosts along the path reroute things and then how good is your
UUCP source route?   Don't say it.  I know, you can route
around those sites, too.  The key word here is YOU.  Well, YOU
can do it, I don't want to have to.

>  With UUCP, since I can specify routes, I can route around problems
>and get my mail through.  With domains, I can't.

What?  I do believe most DNS mailer support source routing...  but
I rarely have to use them. 

>	/rich $alz

One really nice thing about MX'ing is that the DNS doesn't care what the
transport method is.  The UUCP mapping project does care, UUCP sites only.

	Kurt