Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:3140 comp.mail.misc:1914
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!mica.berkeley.edu!wisner
From: wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: rewriting FROM: lines
Message-ID: <24763@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 23 May 89 19:16:03 GMT
References: <31051@sri-unix.SRI.COM> <160@zebra.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Amnesia International
Lines: 50

I'm sure I'll get some help here (you there, Karl?) but here goes:

(Vernon C. Hoxie)
>	I have been confused for a long time about how to interpret
>domain names.  "Bang" pathes seem quite logical in that they describe the
>step by step path from one user to another.  In fact, bang pathes are used
>in domain addressing until we get to that weird stuff at the end.  Suddenly
>the logical sequence of names is inverted so that the users name precedes
>the machine or whatever is inferred.  That flip in logic is what makes me
>think of domain addressing as "stupid".

The addressing style makes perfect sense. I'm wisner@mica.berkeley.edu,
which can be literally taken as "wisner at (the machine) mica.berkeley.edu".
That can be further broken down as a machine named mica, which is at Berkeley,
which is an EDUcational institution.

Bang paths are *not* used in proper domain addressing. UUCP machines will
use them to fit the constraints of the transport, but the users at either end
of the delivery (the sender and receiver) should never see them. Domain-style
addressing is not stupid. It is (opinion follows), if anything, simpler and
more "graceful," if you will, than a bang path.

>	Perhaps you can enlighten some of us who are not exactly in a
>"domain" as to the virtues of this style addressing.  First, my
>dictionary has one definition of "domain" as "a sphere of influence".
>I can't see how the .COM on your address has any relevance to the delivery
>of a message when there are so many .COM's scattered all over the country.

One advantage of domain-style addressing is that you need only address mail
to user@host and it will get there. No mucking about with paths or routing
or gateways. Another advantage is that domain-style machine names guarantee
uniqueness. This is the only mica.berkeley.edu there is. Someone at, say,
UCLA could also name his machine mica. He would then have himself a machine
called mica.ucla.edu. There are no conflicts involved because both names
are different. Having two UUCP hosts named mica, on the other hand, would
cause some problems.

> 	In your address, "jthomp@hemaneh.Central.Sun.COM", what are the
>meanings of the encryptions following the "@" sign? ..and of what concern
>are they to me so far from your organization.

hemaneh.Central.Sun.COM is the full, official name of his machine. At a guess,
I'd say that the machine is named hemaneh and it's in the Central division
offices of Sun Microsystems, which is a COMpany.

>	If we are not large corporations or universities, but individuals
>not affiliated with any defined domain, what addressing should be used?

There's a US (United States) domain which works out well for such things.
You could, perhaps, register as zebra.denver.co.us.