Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!ambar
From: ambar@athena.mit.edu (Jean Marie Diaz)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Rerouting of explicit paths
Message-ID: <3544@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 7 Mar 88 18:38:39 GMT
References: <327@vsi1.UUCP> <9@tness7.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: ambar@athena.mit.edu (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: Madhouse International Technologies
Lines: 24

In article <9@tness7.UUCP> mechjgh@tness1.UUCP (Greg Hackney) writes:
>In article <327@vsi1.UUCP> lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair) writes:

>>(since I found out that rutgers is rerouting, I changed their map entry
>>to show all their connections as DEAD).

>Ah. So YOU are rerouting around Rutgers because you think it's
>the best way to treat mail. By your terms, you should be de-netted.

You're confused about what "rerouting" is.  If a piece of mail comes
through my machine addressed: mit-eddie!spt!root, and my machine says "I
know a better way to get to spt!  We talk to it directly!" and sends it
to spt!root instead, that's rerouting.

Me editing my maps to show all routes to rutgers as DEAD is not
rerouting.  It means that any mail that originates on my machine (quite
a bit -- we run several large mailing lists off of bloom-beacon) will
not be routed through rutgers.  This is a perfectly reasonable thing to
do, since you're not second-guessing anyone (not even your own users,
for if someone on bloom-beacon addresses mail to mit-eddie!rutgers!spam!foo,
that's the path that it takes).

				AMBAR
ambar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu			{backbones}!mit-eddie!ambar