Michelle Sullivan matthew at
Sun Feb 21 17:32:09 UTC 2010

Paul Vixie wrote:
> so, a uucp-only site should have upgraded to real smtp by now, and by not
> doing it they and their internet gateway are a joint menace to society?
> that seems overly harsh.  there was a time (1986 or so?) when most of the
> MX RR's in DNS were smtp gateways for uucp-connected (or decnet-connected,
> etc) nodes.  it was never possible to reject nonexistent at uucpconnected at
> their gateway since the gateway didn't know what existed or not.  i'm not
> ready to declare that era dead.

I was running a UUCP gateway not so long ago, and might revive it in the
future (got an old school BBS with a UUCP gateway and no SMTP still.)

The front end still knew the back end valid addresses though and that's
going from a PCBoards BBS to a Postfix SMTP gateway via UUCP.

That said there are many out there that refuse on the grounds "I don't
have the time to fix it" .. and of course one could retort with "I don't
have the time to receive mail from you."

I'm on the fence, if it's SMTP there *should* be no reason for the front
end not to know valid users at the back end...  Something will know the
valid list of email addresses, so you *should* be able to get that
information to the front end. 


* should because there will be edge cases where you can't get the
information, but then are there that many emails behind that gateway
that couldn't be updated manually?

More information about the NANOG mailing list