Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdahl!krs
From: krs@amdahl.amdahl.com (Kris Stephens)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: routing in the user agent
Message-ID: <15357@amdahl.amdahl.com>
Date: Tue, 29-Sep-87 12:58:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.15357
Posted: Tue Sep 29 12:58:00 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Oct-87 02:42:46 EDT
References: <7333@e.ms.uky.edu> <1631@umix.cc.umich.edu> <1599@ukecc.engr.uky.edu> <15291@amdahl.amdahl.com> <2589@xanth.UUCP>
Reply-To: krs@amdahl.amdahl.com (Kris Stephens)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 26

In article <2589@xanth.UUCP> kyle@xanth.UUCP (Kyle Jones) writes:
>I completely agree that users should be given the option to override
>paths; pathalias/smail are not infallible.  But I do question putting
>routing information into *the headers* and I question having the *UA*
>do the routing.
>
>In all the cases cited so far "routing by hand" is used as a last
>resort, so why should the uninitiated have to see the way routed are
>crazy-glued together?  Furthermore if the UA uses the same data that
>the DA uses to produce its routes, you gain nothing.  So you're left
>doing the routing by hand, in which case it's simple to format your
>own messages and hand them to the DA directly (with a good route).

I have no real problem with this as long as the user-interface remains
constant.  It's tough enough teaching someone how to use this system
without letting them in on multiple pipes into the mailer.  If a user
can send mail to "name" or "name-at-site" or to a fully-specified path
all with the same command and with all other tactile aspects the same,
I think we've done him a great service.

...Kris
-- 
Kristopher Stephens, | (408-746-6047) |          {whatever}!amdahl!krs
Amdahl Corporation   |                |    -or-  krs@amdahl.amdahl.com
     [The opinions expressed above are mine, solely, and do not    ]
     [necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of Amdahl Corp. ]