Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!ateng!chip From: chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Rerouting considered GOOD Message-ID: <1988Sep27.105604.5152@ateng.ateng.com> Date: 27 Sep 88 14:56:03 GMT References: <8809212215.AA21035@naggum.se> <2540@sultra.UUCP> <371@ditka.UUCP>Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL Lines: 33 I think I've finally figured out what makes active-routing proponents tick. According to lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear): >Sorry, Karl. ihnp4 and seismo are the best examples that sites go away >and mailing lists DON'T get updated. Routing is not a thing for humans >should have to waste their time doing. ^^^^^^ The active routing people are optimists. They start with correct premises: "People _shouldn't_ have to make routes by hand; the maps _should_ always be accurate." They then optimistically conclude: "Therefore we _should_ always believe the maps instead of source routes." Every postmaster should have this sign over her/his desk: +---------------------------------------+ | What should be is not always what is. | +---------------------------------------+ To clarify, here is a table: Things Should be Are ------ --------- --- Usenet maps accurate inaccurate Human-written routes unnecessary occasionally necessary Active routers helpful evil and rude Passive routers half a solution the best compromise Any questions? -- Chip Salzenberg or A T Engineering My employer may or may not agree with me. The urgent leaves no time for the important.