[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
retry
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 93 07:35:56 PDT
To: dcrocker
cc: Postmaster
From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
----- Transcript of session follows -----
While talking to interlock.ans.net:
>>> RCPT To:<ip-sec@ans.net>
<<< 550 <ip-sec@ans.net>... Invalid recipient - Not registered
550 ip-sec@ans.net... User unknown
----- Recipients of this delivery -----
Bounced, cannot deliver:
ip-sec@ans.net
Sent successfully:
kasten@ftp.com
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
namedroppers@nic.ddn.mil
----- Unsent message follows -----
Return-Path: <dcrocker>
Received: from localhost by Mordor.Stanford.EDU (5.65/inc-1.0)
id AA14847; Wed, 8 Sep 93 07:35:56 -0700
Message-Id: <9309081435.AA14847@Mordor.Stanford.EDU>
To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil, ip-sec@ans.net, namedroppers@nic.ddn.mil
Subject: Re: Use of DNS to distribute keys
Phone: +1 415 390 1804, +1 408 246 8253; fax: +1 408 249 6205
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 08 Sep 93 09:51:12 -0400. <930908135
1.AA18228@ftp.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 93 07:35:55 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker>
X-Mts: smtp
Frank,
---- Included message:
What are the alternatives?
Either
1) We use the Domain Name Service protocol for these things or
2) We do not use the Domain Name Service protocol for these things.
My intent was merely to suggest running the same software in parallel,
listening to a different port. In reality, you see, I would expect the
software to end up NOT being the same, since the new port/service would
be considerably enhanced.
You might actually want, instead, to view this as a transition plan to
the new, improved DNS. I don't know. But I'm quite concerned that the
current service be kept VERY stable and strongly suspect that the wide
range of (very reasonable) uses that are being considered for addition
could/will change it.
d/
------- End of Forwarded Message