Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ubvax!vsi1!lmb
From: lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Dynamic vs. passive routing: site rights
Message-ID: <967@vsi1.UUCP>
Date: 27 Aug 88 05:26:16 GMT
References: <4902@netnews.upenn.edu> <965@vsi1.UUCP> <6392@chinet.UUCP>
Reply-To: lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair)
Organization: VICOM Systems Inc., San Jose, CA
Lines: 20

In article <6392@chinet.UUCP> les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
=In article <965@vsi1.UUCP> lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair) writes:
=>
=>You've completely missed the point.  If I give your site a path b!c!user,
=>I don't care how you get it to b.  If you have a cheaper path to b than
=>a direct call, send it that way.  What I care about is when you send it
=>to a site that you think is c.  Only b knows who their c is.
=
=But if you have a map entry for b showing that it talks to your site
=and c, and you have a map entry for c showing that it talks to b, do
=you not then know that the c in your map entry is the same c that
=b is going to forward to?  Of course it is possible to lie both in the
=map entries and in a uucp conversation, but then you deserve to lose...

I'll accept your logic.  If b publishes its connect to c, it is acceptable
to assume that b!c means b!c.UUCP.  This, of course, has nothing to do
with the rerouting that smail can be made to perform.
-- 
Larry Blair
ames!vsi1!lmb