Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!itivax!scs From: scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve C. Simmons) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: sigh (was Re: Short-circuiting a route) Message-ID: <2190@itivax.iti.org> Date: 17 Jul 89 12:55:16 GMT References: <562@daitc.daitc.mil> <12167@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> Organization: Industrial Technology Institute, Ann Arbor, MI. Lines: 39 karl@dinosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >lmb7421@ultb.uucp writes: > The rules are set up for INTERNET, not UUCP. >Well, that's kinda how I look at matters, too. But Aydin has >suggested some fairly rigorous applications of Internet rules in the >context of UUCP. First he makes a (rather low-key, off-the-wall) >suggestion that !-paths are source routes. I responded by saying it's >in the wrong format . . . Hmmm...I'll let you RFC experts look this one up: Aren't gateways supposed to handle all the issues of reformatting (which may or may not mean rerouting) addresses when crossing networks? Thus if I send bangist mail thru an internet gateway, shouldn't the gateway reform it from foo!bar!baz!user to @foo,@bar,@baz,@user or something similar? This preserves the uucp routing specified and gets things into a state where rerouting is definately Rude. Re Karls comments about possibly disjoint pairs in routes (ie, bar!baz link doesn't exist, and you are bar) -- it's a sender error. Return to sender. Don't attempt to redeliver, recover, reroute, etc. The sender specified a route that don't work, so return to sender. When you use specified routing, you damned well better get it right. >Don't take the world too seriously _all_ the time... >Grins, Just a quick compliment for you guys: it's a real pleasure to see folks have a serious disagreement without burning down the house. Nice. -- Steve Simmons scs@vax3.iti.org Industrial Technology Institute Ann Arbor, MI. "Velveeta -- the Spam of Cheeses!" -- Uncle Bonsai