At 12:38 -0600 4/6/03, Vernon Schryver wrote:
How would that differ from the current situation? All working UUCP-STMP
gateways that I've seen generate bounces when their own UUCP or SMTP
transactions fail. Gateways treat their own bounces as well as bounces
from afar like other mail. I can't think of an alternative that would
be as reliable, not to mention practical.
Again, bounces need to be generated for more than just "user unknown."
Unless you can cram the entire Internet into an old style BBS, there
will be relays. As long as there are relays, you will have either
bounces or blackholes. Without bounces, all remote failures are like
blackholes. Who except spammers does not want to receive bounces for
their own mail?
Maybe I'm missing something.
I will try to answer based on signal- rather than content-analysis.
If there's a relatively very small number of hosts that must do some
protocol (UUCP) and if support for that protocol is holding up other things,
then it would seem to make sense to provide those hosts with a gateway option
that makes their world look just like it did before.
Presumably the number of such hosts is finite and also declining, such
that outbound problems from their gateways could be more easily contained
that attempts to "fix" an unlimited number of old-protocol hosts that never
even talk the protocol...
UUCP sites' inbound situation may be just the same as it ever had been, though
their gateways could presumably provide some new-protocol benefits in both
directions. As with any gateway scenario, information from the back-end may
need to move toward the gateway to make things work well.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg