Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:2401 comp.mail.misc:1412
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!claris!apple!voder!pyramid!prls!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: Just a thought...
Message-ID: <2692@sultra.UUCP>
Date: 30 Nov 88 04:44:35 GMT
References: <140@minya.UUCP>  <1005@asylum.sf.ca.us>
Organization: Tynan Computers, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 22


Just a quick thought on the psychology of active-rerouting...
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"

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.  For example, a site connects to UUNET at
300 baud (yeuch!).  It also connects to a big machine on the Internet by
local call.  In the maps, the site would penalize the UUNET connection.
All mail to UUNET would be through the big neighbour.  However, if someone
wants to cost this particular site a lot of money, they could hand-route a
whole pile of large mail directly to UUNET.  The 'active' rerouter in this
case, would simply insert an extra component in the bang-path, which
redirected the mail to the Internet site.  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? ---