Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:850 comp.mail.misc:698
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ncr-sd!matt
From: matt@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Matt Costello)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: How not to list a network gateway in the maps
Summary: Use private map files
Keywords: pathalias USENET super bitnet
Message-ID: <1948@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 15 Dec 87 03:26:18 GMT
References: <165@fesk.UUCP> <567@egg-id.UUCP>
Reply-To: matt@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Matt Costello)
Followup-To: comp.mail.misc
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Lines: 26

In article <567@egg-id.UUCP> nsadmin@egg-id.UUCP (Linn Hower) writes:
>  I also had bitnet mail bounce and tracked down this same problem.
>However I don't agree with the above conclusion.  If I am providing
>a gateway service on a single computation node, its `cost' is very
>low, approaching zero depending on my cpu horsepower.  Why don't
>we use pathalias's input for what its designed for?  Why have a special
>case for gateways?  I feel the input from the d.Top file should reflect
>the true cost of gatewaying.

The definition of gateways should almost always use the default pathalias
cost of 4000.  Even though a gateway is defined as a link (to pathalias)
its real cost is always 0 because that machine IS the gateway.  While the
published maps stick to the default cost for domain gateways I'll be able
to locally override these costs for specific cases.  Right now, for example,
relay.cs.net is listed within NCR as a gateway to bitnet with a cost of 95;
This was done to override super's incorrect map entry.  Our gateway to .MIL
is a nearby machine actually on the MILNET.

Please people, don't put everything out into the USENET map files.  These
files are supposed to be getting smaller as domain mailers become more
common.  I've got systems that are sometimes unable to use the full USENET
database because the user process size limit is only 1 MB.
-- 
Matt Costello	
+1 619 485 2926	
		{sdcsvax,cbosgd,pyramid,nosc.ARPA}!ncr-sd!matt