Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:2537 comp.mail.misc:1487 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!rutgers!njin!princeton!njsmu!telesci!fantasci!jep From: jep@fantasci.UUCP (Joseph E Poplawski) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Another example why not to re-route Message-ID: <342@fantasci.UUCP> Date: 16 Dec 88 01:09:14 GMT References: <1005@asylum.sf.ca.us> <2696@sultra.UUCP> Reply-To: jep@fantasci.UUCP (Joseph E Poplawski) Organization: Fantasci Incorporated Lines: 27 In article <2696@sultra.UUCP> dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan) writes: >In article , vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes: >> >> the default case. A header that said "X-REROUTE: YES" with the default > >I suggested in the past (and yes, I suggesting it again), that instead of a >special purpose header, we use something like: X-OPTIONS: REROUTE. This >way, other options could be added without having to change the basic RFC822. .. .. >path. It would be great if there was another option something like; > OPTIONS: NOBOUNCE I think the X-REROUTE: or OPTIONS: field should have reroute defaulted as YES so that novices who don't know what they are doing can hope the rerouters and smart mailers can figure out the best way to get it there, while the experts and other proficient mail users can change it if they desire. -Jo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Joseph E Poplawski (Jo) US Mail: 1621 Jackson Street | | Cinnaminson NJ 08077 | | UUCP:..!rutgers!rochester!moscom!telesci!fantasci!jep | | ..!princeton!telesci!fantasci!jep | | ..!pyrnj!telesci!fantasci!jep Phone: +1 609 786-8099 home | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------