Xref: utzoo comp.mail.misc:2090 alt.religion.computers:75
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nuchat!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: sigh (was Re: Short-circuiting a route)
Message-ID: <2744@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 9 Jul 89 15:47:17 GMT
References: <1062@aber-cs.UUCP> <59767@uunet.UU.NET> <7102@ki4pv.uucp>
Reply-To: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 22

In article <7102@ki4pv.uucp> tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) writes:
>In article <59767@uunet.UU.NET>, rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams) writes:
>) I'm not arguing in favor of rerouting, but  I can't conceive of
>) even a tiny fraction of mail be routed optimally to begin with.
>Define optimally.  Here, to give you a start, is  how  we  define
>it.   We  say  that  mail  is  routed  optimally  if it is routed
>according to the published  maps,  as  amended  by  local  wisdom
>(local map files).

I'll add one more requirement to 'optimal routing': that it reach its
intended destination. I religiously avoid sending non-.edu mail via one
particular route out of my site because I know it will get sent to the
Black Hole of Rutgers, pass the event horizon, and never be seen again.
To me, even though the mail may take an extra hop or two, I am
reasonably sure it will get where I intended it to go, and that is
optimal. Lost mail is not optimal.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
uucp:        uunet!nuchat!   (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
internet: jay@splut.conmicro.com    | Richard Sexton, proud Texan.