Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: Stef@nrtc.northrop.COM (Einar Stefferud)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: Question about routing
Message-ID: <859.649030910@nma.com>
Date: 26 Jul 90 22:39:31 GMT
Reply-To: Stef@nrtc.northrop.COM
Lines: 29
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 26 Jul 90 09:42:00 -0300.
             <9007261114.aa10285@ICS.UCI.EDU>

In your situation described below, it is simply a matter of only
propigating the responsibility bit with the copy for which the receiving
(relaying or delivering) MTA is responsible.  The responsibility bit is
set on a per recipient basis.

All other addresses in any propigated copy must have the responsibility
bit turned off for all adresses for which the MTA is not responsible,
and all MTAs must not relay or deliver a message to a recipient for
which they are not responsible.

This is fundamentally what "responsibility" means.  Best...\Stef

>                  --->            --->
>                 ----------- MTA3 ----
>                 |                   |
>        --->     |                   |
> MTA1 ---------- MTA2                 |
>                 |                   |
>                 |                   |
>                 ----------- MTA4 ----
>                  --->            --->
>
>       A UA at MTA1 submits a message to users at MTA3 and
> > MTA4. MTA1 sets the responsability flag and transfers the
> message to MTA2. MTA2 will duplicate the message and transfer to
> mTA3 and MTA4.

>       How to prevent MTA3 from receiving the message and
> transfering it to MTA4 and vice-versa with the MTA4.