ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Ban the bounce; improved challenge-response systems

2003-04-06 13:22:14
So this one little issue has popped out over and again, in this thread.

Sweden!

?!

What's up with Sweden?


At 13:20 -0700 4/6/03, J C Lawrence wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 08:42:04 -0700 Phillip Hallam-Baker <Hallam-Baker> wrote:

 99% of internet users cannot send to UUCP. I see this a geek-tweak
 rather than a serious constraint.

Actually, this is false.  You, today, using MS Outlook, can email those
UUCP users and never notice the difference.  So can I, and so can every
other member of this list.  The days of bang paths being exposed as a
fundamental aspect of mail addressing are long dead.
Today you mail to a standard user(_at_)domain address.  The fact that the
primary MX for that domain then bundles your mail into UUCP packets and
transports them (occasionally via several hops) to a UUCP connected box
for final deliver, and that mail takes the same route in reverse can be
(and often is) entirely hidden from you unless you start examining the
headers in detail.

 I find the third world argument unconvicing. I seriously doubt the
 nigerians are sending their stuff over uucp.

I can't comment on Nigeria in particular, but large parts of the Africa
(Egypt, Congo, Kenya, Gabon, and Tanzania that I know of directly), much
of the East Indies, Eastern Russia, Sweden, Finland, and various smaller
Pacific and Atlantic island nations are hung off UUCP links.

If anything, this number (in terms of human population) will only
increase as the 'net becomes more prevalent in such parts of the world.

 If uucp is no longer viable people wil soon find a alternative.

Note: Many of those same people web-browse via HTTP-GET over email over
UUCP.  Connected protocols are not an option for them.  They are
explicitly and necessarily disconnected and must rely on
packet-forwarding solutions.

 We should make smtp work as well as it can.

Agreed.  But that goes for the payload specifics as well (RFC 2822).

 I seriously doubt that will affect gateways to obsolete protocols, if
 it does, deal with it.

If it turns out that the only way out is to sacrifice things like UUCP,
so be it, but there's no reason to make that decision now, or to
predeclare that UUCP is on the will-sacrifice-at-first-opportunity list.

--
J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu               He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>