Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!amdcad!phil
From: phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Dynamic vs. passive routing: site rights
Message-ID: <22817@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 2 Sep 88 19:52:51 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> <15979@onfcanim.UUCP> <715@hemingway.WEITEK.COM>
Reply-To: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices
Lines: 17

In article <715@hemingway.WEITEK.COM> robert@hemingway.WEITEK.COM (Robert Plamondon) writes:
<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.  

I very strongly agree with this.
-- 
Why do Big-Endians number their bytes backwards from their bits?

I speak for myself, not the company.
Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or phil@amd.com