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.