Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!vsi1!lmb From: lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail Subject: Re: Re^2: Short-circuiting a route Message-ID: <1989Jun28.215826.19489@vicom.com> Date: 28 Jun 89 21:58:26 GMT References: <562@daitc.daitc.mil> <89Jun28.104844edt.10373@neat.ai.toronto.edu> <3569@ncar.ucar.edu> <4147@tank.uchicago.edu> Reply-To: lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair) Organization: VICOM Systems Inc., San Jose, CA Lines: 14 In article <4147@tank.uchicago.edu> matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) writes: =I think that if fidonet or anyone else wants to have mail from the =internet enter their realm at a point chosen by them, then they should =provide a person (or some automated tool) to keep up the MX records at =the required level of detail. I think you've missed a more important reason: cost. Suppose I have my uucp site registered, with uunet as my forwarder. If you short circuit bang paths you may either cost me $1.50 for a daytime delivery or hold up my mail until uunet calls me at night. This is a tired, old, subject. Don't reroute, it's RUDE. -- Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb@vicom.com