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