NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/mail/uucp/2431

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-27 | 3.3 KB

Xref: sparky comp.mail.uucp:2431 comp.mail.misc:4098
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!network.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU!werple.apana.org.au!tuple.apana.org.au!boombox!djk
From: [e-mail] (David Keegel)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Mixed format addresses
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 09:11:08 +1100
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Private site, Melbourne, Australia.
Lines: 53

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan P Barrett) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] (Willard Dawson) writes:
>> For what it's worth, I've come across the same problem, mailer software
>> querying DNS on host.UUCP, on several "Internet" hosts.  If we accept
>> the statement (from more than one participant on these newsgroups) that
>> .UUCP is INVALID (typically shouted, as if that would make it somehow
>> more logical), the Internet hosts surely have no business in querying
>> DNS for that domain, yes?

>An Internet host cannot *know* that .UUCP in invalid unless it either
>    queries the DNS and gets back an error indication
>or  has special-case information somehow installed in its configuration.

What I have seen is special casing for top level UUCP and BITNET
domains.  I think munnari.oz.au is a really well set up machine for
Internet mail.  It has a class for fake top-level domains for which
it won't query the DNS (including UUCP and BITNET).  Any postmasters
who want a smart mail node would do well to follow suit.

>A good argument can be made for avoiding special-case information, and
>Internet hosts that believe such an argument have every right to query
>the DNS for *everything*, including .UUCP sites.  They will, of course,
>get back an error indication, which will tell them that the domain is
>invalid, and they will accordingly bounce the improperly addressed mail.

It depends on whether you want to be able to talk to the other networks
which are connected to The Matrix on *their* terms, rather than The
Internet's terms.  Their is a good argument for saying it's up to the
postmaster individually to decide whether to support well known but not
DNSed addresses or whether it isn't worth the bother.

This is how you get the situation where some sites can send to *.uucp
but some sites cannot, and this is A Good Thing.  Because that way
there is an incentive for people to get out of the .UUCP domain so we
may not need to support it (for global routing) in five years time.

>> We likely all agree on that one.

>Apparently not.

Based on what I could tell about the South African link (this may be
old news, are you still connected to PSG?) you can use all the bandwidth
you can get.  If you can stop your internet hosts querying root name
servers for .UUCP mail addresses it might improve your RTT & throughput.

In other words, if you don't agree about the "theoretical" arguments
about what should be done about .UUCP (now & long term), consider the
practical argument about reducing traffic.

--
<[e-mail]>  <werple!tuple!boombox!djk>  Tel: [phone]
aka: [e-mail], [e-mail].  Formerly: [e-mail].