Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!umix!b-tech!zeeff
From: zeeff@b-tech.UUCP (Jon Zeeff)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Mail survey #1
Message-ID: <4750@b-tech.UUCP>
Date: 4 Sep 88 14:27:34 GMT
References: <4740@b-tech.UUCP> <4747@b-tech.UUCP> <4748@b-tech.UUCP> <3703@rayssd.ray.com>
Reply-To: zeeff@b-tech.UUCP (Jon Zeeff)
Organization: Branch Technology Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 29

In article <3703@rayssd.ray.com> gmp@rayssd.RAY.COM (Gregory M. Paris) writes:
>In article <4748@b-tech.UUCP> zeeff@b-tech.UUCP (Jon Zeeff) writes:
>> 
>> Clearly the majority does not want active rerouting.  Sites that want 
>> to do so should keep things working by marking all links as DEAD in 
>> the map entrys that they circulate.  
>
>I don't understand how marking all links as DEAD helps.  Presumably,

Mail that was completely routed by up to date, consistent pathalias 
data has never been a problem.  One problem is created when a site 
thinks that it has better map info than the originating site.  Marking 
links as DEAD avoids these sites and this problem.  Another problem 
(which I don't have much sympathy for) is duplicate site names.  Many
people partially route an address by using site1!site2!user and letting
their mailer figure out how to get to site1.  Marking links as DEAD
avoids sites that will try to take short cuts to site2.

>	2. The mail was routed "manually" by a human that rightly or
>	   wrongly knows a good route.  DEAD has no effect whatsoever

By marking the links as DEAD, you have at least documented the 
problem.  If someone ignores this information and uses completely 
manual routing through nasty sites, they get what they asked for.  


-- 
Jon Zeeff      			Branch Technology,
umix!b-tech!zeeff  		zeeff%b-tech.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu