Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!clyde!watmath!onfcanim!dave
From: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Dynamic vs. passive routing: site rights
Message-ID: <15979@onfcanim.UUCP>
Date: 1 Sep 88 00:09:00 GMT
References: <4902@netnews.upenn.edu> <92@volition.dec.com> <Aug.26.11.29.05.1988.18591@NET.BIO.NET> <3769@bsu-cs.UUCP> <Aug.26.20.28.38.1988.24988@NET.BIO.NET> <15923@onfcanim.UUCP> <5345@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>
Reply-To: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Organization: National Film Board / Office national du film, Montreal
Lines: 15

In article <5345@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> wisner@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Bill Wisner) writes:
>
>No. The real action 3 is "if a smart host is defined give the mail to
>them. If not, bounce it." Aggressive rerouting is a seperate option
>and, if defined, is performed before your (1).

I must disagree.  The documentation implies that if routing to the
first host fails, it will try "agressive rerouting" as a last chance
before bouncing mail.

Then, wondering if the documentation was right, I tried it.  I sent
mail to trash!watcgl!user, where "trash" does not exist but "watcgl" does.
The mail was queued for watcgl!user, not bounced.

And I have "#define ROUTING JUSTDOMAIN" in defs.h, not REROUTE.