Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!njin!brisco From: brisco@pilot.njin.net (Thomas Paul Brisco) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: an example of why I don't believe in automatic routing Message-ID: Date: 4 Aug 88 17:20:50 GMT References: <676@bacchus.DEC.COM> <881@vsi1.UUCP> Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 60 In article <881@vsi1.UUCP> lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair) writes: > > There is nothing wrong with letting the MTA route for you if the first hop > is a non-connect. Your mail WILL get to mcvax, unless (pet peeve!) it goes > through some Bozo site, like rutgers, that thinks that the maps are gospel > and refuses to let you do your own routing. As long as the MTA allows > specific routing, it is far better to concentrate route generation in the > one facility. > > Btw, our bounce rate for "reasonable" paths has gone to zero since I added > "-d rutgers" to our pathalias run. > -- > * * O Larry Blair In fact, there is nothing wrong will letting your MTA do all the routing for you. I've had very few sites bouncing back to me, and I _usually_ route through rutgers. I do get a few bounced now and then -- but I attribute that to brain-dead administrators who can't be bothered to keep their maps up to date. You can hardly blame rutgers for letting pathalias do *all* of the routing -- the maps are supposed to mirror the actual connectivity available (but are also used to add "administrative" weights at some sites). I've had one site directly off of rutgers for about a year now (a machine at home), and currently have a second one with a lot of other sites in addition. I really don't want to spend my time figuring out what is the quickest path between sites X and Y, I really think my attention is best put in other places. What I *do* have a problem with is the turn-around time for a map to get published, but since I really can't think of a better method for distributing the maps I'm not going to complain too loudly - and the turn-around time isnt *that* bad. What I *really* get ticked with is the administrators who can't be bothered with keeping their maps up to date. Simply because Rutgers chooses to follow the maps _as published_ is hardly a reason to flame on them. *THAT IS WHAT THE MAPS ARE THERE FOR*. I've seen sites that were dead for about a year without the silly-a**ed administrator bothering to remove the map, *nor remove the entry from his/her other hosts maps*. Even after flaming at them periodically for months, they still could not find time to delete a couple of lines from their existing map entries. You would do better to spend time flaming the sites that cannot spend the 15 to 30 seconds that it takes to update the maps as necessary - NOT to flame the sites that implement the maps as intended. Tp. "In this perfect world ..." -- ---------------------------------------- UUCP: ...!rutgers!brisco ...!njin!brisco ARPA: brisco@pilot.njin.net BITNET: brisco@zodiac.bitnet Voice: (201) 932-2351 ---------------------------------------- Ask me about the New Jersey Intercampus Network Pilot Project