Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:2426 comp.mail.misc:1432 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ateng!chip From: chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Another example why not to re-route Message-ID: <1988Dec1.122907.10076@ateng.ateng.com> Date: 1 Dec 88 17:29:07 GMT References: <140@minya.UUCP><1005@asylum.sf.ca.us> <2692@sultra.UUCP> Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL Lines: 18 According to dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan): >It seems to me, that there are two kinds of rerouters; > a) "That's a pretty poor way to route it, I can do better than that" > b) "Hmm. I don't want to use that link unless I have to" These already have names: a) Active routing b) Passive routing >As for the first case, this is fairly obnoxious, and should be discouraged >at all costs. On the other hand, I can think of fairly valid reasons for >rerouting in the second case. Quite. -- Chip Salzenberg or A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers.