Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!amdcad!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!van-bc!sl
From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Strange routing!
Keywords: smail uucp mail
Message-ID: <1671@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 13 Feb 88 08:32:27 GMT
Organization: Public Access Network, Vancouver, BC.
Lines: 72


In the last week I've noticed a couple of messages sneeking through van-bc
destined to:
	
	cdl!van-bc!uupc

I havn't checked yet, but I guess that if you arn't doing re-routing of
absolute addresses, smail doesn't even look if the site it's running on is
further on down in the chain.

What appears to be happening is that site cdl has been thought to talk to
a site somewhere off in the blue yonder (I don't think it actually does
though). When the message arrived there, the mail system thoughtfully
rerouted via ubc-vision, but keeping the cdl!van-bc!skl so:

	...!reed!nscpdc!cdl!van-bc!uupc

becomes (approx):

	...!reed!nscpdc  pyramid!utai!ubc-vision!cdl!van-bc!uupc


Now cdl does talk to ubc-vision, but on a very low priority compared to
van-bc, so ubc-vision changed it to:

	van-bc!cdl!van-bc!uupc

Which got delivered here, where smail kindly forwarded it to cdl. They of
course sent it back for delivery.


> From ubc-vision!utai!tektronix!pyramid!cae780.TEK.COM!hplabs!hp-sdd!ucsd!ucrmath!soft21!root  Sat Feb 13 00:11:09 1988 remote from van-bc
> Received: by van-bc.uucp (smail2.3)
> 	id AA00375; 13 Feb 88 00:11:09 PST (Sat)
> Received: by ubc-vision.UUCP id AA01987; Fri, 12 Feb 88 13:52:19 pst
> Received: from pyramid by ai.toronto.edu via X.25 with UUCP id AA01742; Fri, 12 Feb 88 11:23:24 EST
> Received: by pyramid.UUCP (5.51/OSx4.0b-870424)
> 	id AA15480; Fri, 12 Feb 88 07:45:05 PST
> Received: by nsc.NSC.COM; Fri Feb 12 07:17:36 1988
> Received: by reed.UUCP (5.51/5.17)
> 	id AA24588; Thu, 11 Feb 88 07:44:37 PST
> Received: by tektronix.TEK.COM (5.51/6.24)
> 	id AA01945; Thu, 11 Feb 88 06:48:23 PST
> Received: by cae780.TEK.COM (4.12/6.23)
> 	id AA16853; Thu, 11 Feb 88 06:39:16 pst
> Received: from hp-sdd.HP.COM (hp-sdd) by hplabs.HP.COM with SMTP ; Thu, 11 Feb 88 03:58:01 PST
> Received: by hp-sdd.HP.COM; Thu, 11 Feb 88 03:58:48 PST
> Return-Path: <hp-sdd!ucsd!ucrmath!soft21!root>
> Received: by ucsd.edu (5.58/UCSD-1.0)
> 	id AA02474 for hplabs!cae780!tektronix!reed!nscpdc!cdl!van-bc!uupc; Wed, 10 Feb 88 12:05:57 PST
> Received: by ucrmath.UUCP (5.51/5.17)
> 	id AA00453; Wed, 10 Feb 88 10:31:42 PST
> Received: by soft21.UUCP (smail2.5)
> 	id AA00458; 10 Feb 88 08:54:39 PST (Wed)
> To: ucrmath!ucsd!hp-sdd!hplabs!cae780!tektronix!reed!nscpdc!cdl!van-bc!uupc
> Subject: New version?
> Message-Id: <8802100854.AA00458@soft21.UUCP>
> Date: 10 Feb 88 08:54:39 PST (Wed)
> From: ubc-vision!tektronix!cae780.TEK.COM!hplabs!hp-sdd!ucsd!ucrmath!soft21!root (John Antypas)
> 

Several points come to mind:

	Shouldn't smart mailers at least try and look for themselves in the
	absolute address, even if they don't want to always do re-routing?

	As a site fairly close to the bottom of the tree, (almost all of the
	sites I talk to are leaves), should I do re-routing on the grounds
	that I probably no more about routing than any of them do?

-- 
{ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532