Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!warren
From: warren@samsung.COM (Warren Lavallee)
Newsgroups: news.config
Subject: Re: deleted UUCP sites
Message-ID: <9575@samsung.samsung.com>
Date: 2 Jan 90 23:50:43 GMT
References: <4195@convex.UUCP> <30273@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com>
Distribution: news
Organization: Samsung Software, Andover MA.
Lines: 32

heiby@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com (Ron Heiby) writes:
>When I received similar email, I sent the following message.  Am I way
>off base here?  Thanks.
>-----
[Ron said it was fine to delete the person's UUCP map if they refuse to
update it, but doesn't feel it is right to remove that site from his
map entry.]

I have to disagree.  I don't think that people should be allowed to
have links in their maps to sites without map entries.  I picture the
UUCP maps as a graph.  Each edge is a link, and each vertex is a node.
Each edge has a cost associated with it.  The uupath/smail/pathsend
find the least cost path from your node to anyone elses.

You can not have an edge to a non-existent node.  Also, I shouldn't be
able to find a path to a non-existent node.  I seem to be able to find
a path to 'falkor' though? 

I think the UUCP map coordinators should require that the node exists,
before allowing an edge in a map entry.  Also, every so often they
should do consistency checks on all of their maps and take corrective
measures if they do not pass.

I think UUCP map coordinator's should have the power to enforce these
rules.  Someone apparently has to.

						-- Warren
-- 
Warren J. Lavallee, Samsung Software America.     |UUCP: ..!uunet!samsung!warren
(C)1990 Warren J. Lavallee.  All rights reserved. |Internet:  warren@samsung.com
"Punishment becomes ineffective after a certain point-- Men become insensitive."
                                  -- Eneg, "Patterns of Force," stardate 2534.7.