Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!rayssd!gmp From: gmp@rayssd.ray.com (Gregory M. Paris) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Mail survey #1 Message-ID: <3710@rayssd.ray.com> Date: 4 Sep 88 23:47:38 GMT References: <4740@b-tech.UUCP> <4747@b-tech.UUCP> <4748@b-tech.UUCP> <3703@rayssd.ray.com> <4750@b-tech.UUCP> Sender: gmp@rayssd.ray.com (Gregory M. Paris @ Raytheon Company, Portsmouth RI) Reply-To: gmp@rayssd.RAY.COM (Gregory M. Paris) Organization: Raytheon Submarine Sandwich Division Lines: 29 In reply to my observation that active rerouters using pathalias data have no effect on mail routed using pathalias (thus marking links as DEAD has no beneficial effect), in article <4750@b-tech.UUCP> zeeff@b-tech (Jon Zeeff) writes: > 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 I take from this that you are saying that it is OK to actively reroute as long as you use up to date, consistent pathalias data. I don't see where your poll came to that conclusion. In fact, I'd say that you are DEAD (pun) wrong here, as most complaints on this subject have been about rutgers, which supposedly has the most up to date pathalias info of any site. The results of your poll were interesting, but I still don't think your conclusion that active rerouters should mark all links as DEAD makes sense. I also wonder what kind of enforcement mechanism you are going to back up this directive (suggestion?, plea?) with. Site admins that reroute probably do it for what they think are good reasos. What's going to make them do what you and/or the majority want them to do? -- Greg Paris {decuac,gatech,necntc,sun,uiucdcs,ukma}!rayssd!gmp NO KILL I