Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!decwrl!vixie From: vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Dynamic vs. passive routing: site rights Message-ID: <96@volition.dec.com> Date: 27 Aug 88 21:25:41 GMT References: <4735@b-tech.UUCP> Organization: DEC Western Research Lab Lines: 26 Sometime back, Eliot Lear said: # My goal is to improve connectivity as much as possible. I do that by # exercising my right to reroute. I don't remember seeing any explaination of this "right" -- on what basis is it claimed to exist? And as for "rerouting" -- if you mean what I think you mean, no such route can exist. I think I'd like to see a definition and a validation of the right you claim to have. More recently, Jon Zeeff said: # I'd also encourage everyone connected to a active rerouter to mark # that link as DEAD. I have an even better idea -- everyone on the net should mark all known active rerouters as DEAD. That will save _everyone_ a lot of trouble. Remember that once your message hits an active rerouter, it has a good chance of winding up in the bit bucket after some poor postmaster gets it dumped in his lap N hops later, and he can no longer figure out where it was header or why it came to her. [Hey, Geoff, check out the new .sig:] -- Paul Vixie Work: vixie@decwrl.dec.com decwrl!vixie +1 415 853 6600 Play: paul@vixie.sf.ca.us vixie!paul +1 415 864 7013