Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!intercon!news From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Paths and Precedence (Re: Question about From: lines) Message-ID: <26A6721F.2BD5@intercon.com> Date: 20 Jul 90 02:53:19 GMT References: Sender: usenet@intercon.com (USENET The Magnificent) Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA Lines: 30 In article , peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias > Urlichs) writes: > > Besides, if Intercon has a private link which isn't published, then > > either the linked-to site is in the maps or it isn't. If it is not, > > then I'll have to use source routing, and my MTA knows about that. > > Well, well, well. We get to the point here. You need source routing. If > you don't have a problem with that, why are we having this discussion? I think you've jumped to the wrong conclusion. He doesn't need source routing. If one of my links is published, as is the one to uunet (last I looked at our map entry), then he doesn't need to source route. If he tries to source-route through one of my unpublished links, his mail will bounce. They are unpublished precisely *because* they are for InterCon's use only. If I have a downstream feed that is not in the maps (such as the Macintosh on my desk), then it will have a domain name and my host will route mail appropriately based on that domain name. If (for some reason I cannot think of at the moment) I end up with a downstream feed without a domain name, it will appear in the maps and bounced mail will be their problem. Still no need for source routing, even for a dwnstream site that deals only in UUCP paths. Routing policy for my host is set at my host, not at the site where the mail originated... -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation