Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!agate!saturn!ssyx.ucsc.edu!ulmo
From: ulmo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Brad Allen)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Domains vs. Routing (was Re: rewriting FROM: lines)
Message-ID: <7913@saturn.ucsc.edu>
Date: 10 Jun 89 16:02:28 GMT
References: <31051@sri-unix.SRI.COM> <160@zebra.UUCP> <6982@cbnews.ATT.COM> <882@adobe.UUCP> <99688@felix.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@saturn.ucsc.edu
Lines: 19

> I agree and why in the h___ did it have to change?  If it isn't
> broken, don't fix it.

Three things:
-  It is better to plan ahead than to wait for problems in my book.
-  Number of UUCP hosts was increasing, so the number of names
   and the size of the data to keep track of them has gotten too big
   for most hosts to handle.
-  The ARPAnet (now the Internet) predates UUCP, is more official than UUCP,
   ran into these problems (even worse than UUCP did) before UUCP did,
   and fixed these problems independently of what UUCP did.
   There are also more Internet hosts than UUCP hosts.  Now, it is standard.

Remember, fitting into Internet is current trend.  Next is ISO.
At least with Internet, UUCP is pretty viable, but with ISO UUCP is just
going to be plain silly if it works at all.

I think the general concensus is "If you want to stay in the dark ages,
you have that right."