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.