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? ---