Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!apple!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: <16031@onfcanim.UUCP>
Date: 3 Sep 88 16:37:06 GMT
References: <4902@netnews.upenn.edu> <92@volition.dec.com> <715@hemingway.WEITEK.COM>
Organization: National Film Board / Office national du film, Montreal
Lines: 23


I'm not sure why Robert is arguing with my postings - we seem to be on
the same side, more or less.

I was simply pointing out that smail 2.5, as delivered, in its most
conservative configuration (which is the default) STILL does agressive
re-routing if nothing else works.  I hope this has been established
as fact by now.

Given that smail WILL use agressive re-routing as a last resort, I do not
see why everyone does not let it try its more conservative, and more
correct, routing methods first.  I cannot understand why people configure
smail to do agressive rerouting ALL the time, unless they really believe
that delivering mail faster is more important than sending it to the
correct place.

Robert seems to be arguing that agressive rerouting should never
be done at all, under any circumstances.  I don't wish to argue about
what smail should do, just what smail 2.5 currently does.  There seemed
to be some misunderstanding about the latter, and I was just trying to
clear it up - not start a philosophical debate.

	Dave Martindale