Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!weitek!hemingway!robert From: robert@hemingway.WEITEK.COM (Robert Plamondon) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Dynamic vs. passive routing: site rights Message-ID: <715@hemingway.WEITEK.COM> Date: 1 Sep 88 14:49:40 GMT References: <4902@netnews.upenn.edu> <92@volition.dec.com> <3769@bsu-cs.UUCP> <15923@onfcanim.UUCP> <5345@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <15979@onfcanim.UUCP> Reply-To: robert@hemingway.WEITEK.COM (Robert Plamondon) Organization: WEITEK, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 28 In article <15979@onfcanim.UUCP> dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale) writes: > >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. One of the basic ideas of mail is that non-deliverable mail will bounce, so the sender will know that it doesn't arrive. Using aggressive re-routing both a) Increases the chance that the message will vanish without a trace b) Increases the chance that the message will be delivered to the wrong person. Both of these are things we want to avoid. The whole argument FOR aggressive rerouting is silly: Re-router: "Why are you complaining? I'm doing you a favor." Sender: "I'd rather avoid your site altogether than receive such favors." Maybe your largesse is best spent on something else. -- Robert -- Robert Plamondon robert@weitek.COM "No Toon can resist the old 'Shave and a Hair-Cut'"