Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:2415 comp.mail.misc:1422 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!ames!vsi1!wyse!mips!sultra!dtynan From: dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Another example why not to re-route Summary: How about OPTIONS: instead. Message-ID: <2696@sultra.UUCP> Date: 1 Dec 88 03:53:44 GMT References: <1005@asylum.sf.ca.us>Organization: Tynan Computers, Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 31 In article , vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes: > [Romkey] > # Given these problems, I'm very opposed to active rerouting. If there > # were a way to force certain messages through, I'd be less opposed to > # it (perhaps a header field, "X-REROUTE: NO", which the rerouting > # mailer saw), but there's not. > > the default case. A header that said "X-REROUTE: YES" with the default > > Paul Vixie I suggested in the past (and yes, I suggesting it again), that instead of a special purpose header, we use something like: X-OPTIONS: REROUTE. This way, other options could be added without having to change the basic RFC822. Speaking of which, I don't think that the X- should be in front, because if you put that there, people will ignore it. If, on the other hand, you put it as part of '822, then everyone has to sit up and take notice. I mean, the basic idea behind X-ANYTHING, is that the mailer software will ignore it. That's really not what we want. Another example, someone asked me recently, to mail them a copy of a program (>33K in length). Guess what. 'ames' bounced it back to me, complete with a little note about a bad path. It would be great if there was another option something like; OPTIONS: NOBOUNCE which meant that the bouncing site just returned the header. Comments? - Der -- dtynan@zorba.Tynan.COM (Dermot Tynan @ Tynan Computers) {apple,mips,pyramid,uunet}!Tynan.COM!dtynan --- If the Law is for the People, then why do we need Lawyers? ---