Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nfsun!ditka!dasys1!cucard!ccnysci!dan From: dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: re/routing (was: why you should say "-d ru) Keywords: rerouting Message-ID: <863@ccnysci.UUCP> Date: 15 Aug 88 14:03:38 GMT References: <676@bacchus.DEC.COM> <881@vsi1.UUCP><3674@palo-alto.DEC.COM> <891@vsi1.UUCP> Reply-To: dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) Organization: City College of New York Lines: 31 I have refrained from commenting on this string up until now, even though I have some fairly strong feelings on the subject. I was sort of waiting to hear what Mel Pleasant had to say. Now that he has commented I would like to add my couple of cents worth. We should all appreciate the work that Mel and the others in the mapping project do for making uucp mail more reliable by providing up to date maps. It certainly makes my job of telling people how to address their mail a lot easier. "Use user@site and let our mail system figure out the best route." HOWEVER, that doesn't always work. Bad map entries or missing ones sometimes get in the way. Or sometimes users think they know better how to route the mail than I do. :-) Anyhow, sometimes you need to use a specific route. You can't do that if some intervening mailer is going to mess with the specific bang-path you have given. My goal is to make it possible for userA at my site to send mail to userB at some other site. I can control my map entry, the map entries I use, and my mailer. I cannot control how other people administer their mail systems. Frequently userB has little influence on how mail is administered on their site. Why should my goal of communication between the two users be frustrated by the combination of poor mail administration at one site and the ****** behavior of someone else's "smart" mailer? -- Dan Schlitt dan@ccnysci