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