Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:2375 comp.mail.misc:1405 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!mailrus!ames!oli-stl!asylum!romkey From: romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us (John Romkey) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Another example why not to re-route Message-ID: <1005@asylum.sf.ca.us> Date: 28 Nov 88 14:28:22 GMT References: <140@minya.UUCP><1988Nov26.195926.19030@ateng.ateng.com> Reply-To: romkey@asylum.UUCP (John Romkey) Organization: The Asylum; Belmont, CA Lines: 22 I've also been screwed by active rerouting more times than I want to think about. I KNOW what I'm doing when I send a message with a contorted path, and I sometimes send them to test the path, or see what headers I get back. Having an active rerouter in the path makes it impossible for me to test certain routes. There are also still some sites with duplicate site names that aren't registered - for instance, uworld (Unix World) seems to talk to a system called sirius, but it's not the one in the maps. Yes, this is a bad idea, but it's a situation that exists, and I SHOULD still be able to explicitly route a message there. If there's an active rerouter in the path, like my neighbor bionet, I lose. 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 romkey romkey@asylum.uucp romkey@xx.lcs.mit.edu romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us Find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down.