And this is exactly what I do. I provide mail using uucp over tcp/ip for a lot
of folks. It is even useful in a business environment where the master
mailhost is visible to the internet but the department mailservers are behind a
firewall. In this case, the master server spools the mail for the different
departments by UUCP and the department mailhosts poll the master server at
regular intervals to collect/transmit mail. It sure saves a lot of trouble
when you have systems in 192.168.x.x space trying to move mail to/from a server
outside the firewall on the public internet. Just because you are using uucp
for TRANSPORT does not in any way require you to put addresses in the old uucp
format.
On 08-Nov-97 carlos@??? wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 1997 15:27:39 +0000 (GMT),
> Philip Hazel <ph10@???> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>
> (...)
>> In that case you have to do what you have to do. What a mess. Not having
>> IP addresses tied to individual names is leading to more and more
>> problems. Sigh.
>
> This would not be that much of a problem if people reverted to
> using UUCP in such cases. I mean, no bang paths or anything,
> just plain rfc822, but it would help a lot on "leaf", usually PPP,
> internet connections. This would work perfectly even with
> dynamic and masqueraded addresses.
>
> bye,
> Carlo
>
> --
> Carlo Strozzi PGP Public Key fingerprint :
> ED 4A 7A 6C 88 66 1B 34 06 14 FC 2E C7 EA F2 EE
>
> --
> *** Exim information can be found at http://www.exim.org/ ***
>
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
