Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:2381 comp.mail.misc:1406
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!husc6!purdue!decwrl!vixie
From: vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Another example why not to re-route
Message-ID: 
Date: 29 Nov 88 09:10:54 GMT
References: <1005@asylum.sf.ca.us>
Sender: vixie@decwrl.dec.com
Organization: DEC Western Research Lab
Lines: 17
In-reply-to: romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us's message of 28 Nov 88 14:28:22 GMT

[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.

John, I agree with everything you say here, and I hope someone among the
rerouters will try to answer you.  I don't promise not to toast them, but
I do promise to be gentler about it than I was last time.

One problem with this final suggestion of yours: rerouting _must not_ be
the default case.  A header that said "X-REROUTE: YES" with the default
for all sites being "NO" would be fine.
--
Paul Vixie
Work:    vixie@decwrl.dec.com    decwrl!vixie    +1 415 853 6600
Play:    paul@vixie.sf.ca.us     vixie!paul      +1 415 864 7013