Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!bloom-beacon!ambar
From: ambar@athena.mit.edu (Jean Marie Diaz)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: address writing by gateways
Message-ID: <1130@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13-Jul-87 20:35:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: bloom-be.1130
Posted: Mon Jul 13 20:35:52 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jul-87 01:09:57 EDT
References: <684@vixie.UUCP> <8120005@hpfclp.HP.COM> <715@vixie.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: ambar@athena.mit.edu (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: Madhouse International Technologies
Lines: 19
Summary: theory is nice, but...

In article <715@vixie.UUCP> paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) writes:
>
>It seems unnecessary, since nobody needs to reply to anyone in the middle of
>a route -- just the first.  The others are relative.  If they all have to be
>registered, then one assumes that every host will know how to get mail to 
>them, and wouldn't need route-addrs.

Well, in the Arpanet world at least, that's a nice theory.  But quite
often these days, the ONLY way for me to get mail to a given machine on
the west coast is to route through ucbvax:

foo%decwrl.dec.com@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

This isn't a matter of us not "knowing" decwrl -- the problem is that
the net is so overloaded that we can't stay connected long enough to get
a mail message through!
				AMBAR
ARPA: ambar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
UUCP:(get smail!): {mit-eddie,husc6,garp,bu-cs}!bloom-beacon!ambar