Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site ndm20 Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ndm20!tp From: tp@ndm20 Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Mail Addressing [2 of 4] Semantics Message-ID: <3700003@ndm20> Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 10:32:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ndm20.3700003 Posted: Thu Aug 22 10:32:00 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 05:43:42 EDT References: <9607@ucbvax.ARPA> Lines: 41 Nf-ID: #R:ucbvax.ARPA:-960700:ndm20:3700003:000:1917 Nf-From: ndm20!tp Aug 22 09:32:00 1985 >is to take the position that site X must *not* just forward the mail to >the domain administrator. It must ask the domain administrator for the >routing information, and then use that information *itself*. This has . . . >to limit the load on the administering sites. As somewhat of an add on to Henry's idea, how about this. If a site can not route a message, it asks the domain administrator the proper route. This route, through an *automatic* mechanism, is updated into the requestor's database, so he will never have to ask about that route again. This provides an automatic way for routing databases to be updated. As I understand the idea of domains, these routes would not automatically disseminate, as the idea is to minimalize any node's knowledge of the full configuration of the net. This scheme allows a node to only keep track of the sites he actually mails to. If the route ever fails, then the node can ask the domain administrator and get an updated route. The problem with this whole line of reasoning is that it requires new software that is completely different from what is already in place. The mailer would have to know to ask for a route, and hold the message until it got one. It should also recieve undeliverable mail, contact the domain administrator for a new route, and re-send it. It could be a long time before someone found out his mail was undeliverable. Unless the routes given out by the domain administrator are kept around, the administrator will be plagued by route requests, which probably accounts for just as much load (if not more) as if it just forwarded the message. The catch is that if the are kept around, you never know when they become invalid. Terry Poot Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers (214)739-4741 Usenet: ...!{allegra|ihnp4}!convex!smu!ndm20!tp CSNET: ndm20!tp@smu ARPA: ndm20!tp%smu@csnet-relay.ARPA