Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!pcg From: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail Subject: Re: Short-circuiting a route Keywords: sendmail, smail, domain names Message-ID: <1040@aber-cs.UUCP> Date: 29 Jun 89 11:29:21 GMT Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Organization: Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth (Disclaimer: my statements are purely personal) Lines: 28 In article <3570@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: In article <4140@tank.uchicago.edu> matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) writes: >But in the absence of such cooperation, what I did was to short-circuit >only if the first hop was not a known UUCP neighbor. THANKS! I guess I can mark oddjob as undead now? I see nothing wrong with doing this, because there would be no way for you to deliver the message otherwise. Actually you have more freedom than this; you can *always* add components to the *beginning* of a route, even if its first component is directly attached to you (e.g. if the direct link is slow or temporarily dead and the sender's maps have not been updated yet). On the other hand, every site should only add the minimum number of components to the beginning of a route. If everybody stuck to this rule, one could have a full spectrum between source routing and aggressive (dynamic) routing; if you want the former, just specify the full route, if you want the latter just specify the first hop (and rely on it and every other hop to keep specifying only the hop and target) and the target (in UUCP this, to be unambiguous, may need to be a relative name, i.e. a route... :->), if you want in between, specify a few hops between you and the target, and let them figure out the routes among themselves. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk