Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ddsw1!karl
From: karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Strange routing!
Message-ID: <734@ddsw1.UUCP>
Date: 17 Feb 88 17:06:49 GMT
References: <1671@van-bc.UUCP> <20400@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger)
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL
Lines: 29
Keywords: smail uucp mail
Summary: Reroute only on failure of the user's specified bang path

In article <20400@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1671@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>|	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?

>I think bang style addresses should never be re-routed. What if you
>are wrong? Then I'm screwed. If I am wrong, I'll get a bounce and use
>the right address. But if you are wrong, there's nothing I can do. 

I agree... especially if you regularly communicate with a few people. These
people *know* which paths work; they use them all the time!  How many of the
10k or so paths in your paths file do you actually *use*; that is, how do
you know they are good?

Smail already provides for this in that you can specify that mail should not
be re-routed if received with a 'bang' path unless the attempt to pass the
mail to the next site fails.

On our system, if your 'banged' mail gets here, it is delivered as you
specify *if we can comply with your request*.  If you ask for a next 'hop'
to someone we don't talk to then it gets re-routed automatically, providing
we can find a way to do so (if not then it 'bounces').

This gives you the best of both worlds.

-----
Karl Denninger		       |  Data: +1 312 566-8912
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. | Voice: +1 312 566-8910
...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl	       | "Quality solutions for work or play"