Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!rpw3
From: rpw3@amdcad.AMD.COM (Rob Warnock)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: the crucial distinction
Message-ID: <23130@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 5 Oct 88 04:42:09 GMT
References: <8809212215.AA21035@naggum.se> <2540@sultra.UUCP> <804@bacchus.dec.com>
Reply-To: rpw3@amdcad.UUCP (Rob Warnock)
Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA
Lines: 27

I *almost* agree completely with Paul Vixie,... except that overly-"helpful"
passive rerouting can still cause problems. Or to say it another way, there's
two kinds of passive routing: (1) the "next host" in the path is a plain UUCP
name, e.g. "a!b!c", and you don't talk to "a". These should be returned with
error, so the sender can fix his/her routing table. But if (2) the "next host"
is a fully-qualified domain, e.g. "foo.bar.baz.ca.us!b!c", *then* I think that
it's reasonable to try to route it, as the sender is obviously referring to
a physical UUCP connection (though "foo.bar.baz.ca.us" may be my UUCP neighbor).
So, I say:

	Active routing? NEVER.
	Passive routing of UUCP names? Please, no.  (But some may disagree.)
	Passive routing of domains? Please, by all means! (...if you think you
						understand the domain.)

Note that you can always request site "bar" to attempt routing of a plain
UUCP name "baz" by writing it as "foo!bar!baz.uucp!b!c", since routes for
the ".uucp" pseudo-domain are what's in the published maps.


Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant

UUCP:	  {amdcad,fortune,sun}!redwood!rpw3
ATTmail:  !rpw3
DDD:	  (415)572-2607
USPS:	  627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA  94403