Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!uwvax!oddjob!mimsy!dftsrv!ames!vsi1!altnet!uunet!ateng!chip From: chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Rerouting considered GOOD Message-ID: <1988Oct14.111343.27064@ateng.ateng.com> Date: 14 Oct 88 15:13:42 GMT References: <8809212215.AA21035@naggum.se> <2540@sultra.UUCP> <371@ditka.UUCP> <2947@uoregon.uoregon.edu> <1752@ficc.uu.net> <1988Oct12.200020.16057@ateng.ateng.com> Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL Lines: 23 According to lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear): >For some reason, many people seem to believe that what is should be. >Thus, the old argument, if men were meant to fly... I thank Eliot for the clarification. However, he misunderstands the arguments against active routing. I attempt here to clarify myself. Proponents of active routing believe in the power of positive thinking. For example, the fact "the maps *should* be accurate" becomes, in their minds, "let's assume the maps *are* accurate." If they wish to thus deceive themselves, that's fine. However, active routers subject all mail passing through their system to the effects of their personal delusions, and that is *not* fine. It is a fact that, *given the current method of map generation*, active routing is Evil and Rude. Even Eliot has admitted as much, by retreating to the position his New and Improved map generation scheme will heal all wounds. For now, passive routing is the best compromise. It's not perfect, but it's the best we can do *today*. -- Chip Salzenberg or A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers.