🚀 go-pugleaf

BIONET does fairly heavy mailing to the UK system, and I have never
had a problem short circuiting a .UK path.  I currently do not short
circuit for .JANET, but then very few people are sending out .JANET
these days anyway, and I had assumed it was going the way of .CSNET,
which died some time early last year.

There are two instances that short circuiting is a lose:

[1]	When the domain isn't real.  Solution: don't short circuit to
	unreal domains.  Either keep a list of top level domains, or
	hack the source.  I do the latter, and have never had a
	complaint.

[2]	When the forwarder reintroduces the message into the system
	with the same domain name.  This is the far more complicated
	scenerio.  Greg Woods and I went several rounds of mail on
	this one, and there can be no resolution without [a] some
	fairly hefty processing, and [b] coordination of a large group
	of system administrators [sort of like a herd of cats].

The issue is with [2].  Bear in mind that because I am an Internet
site, if someone is going to be a forwarder and then forward the
message through me, I might as well be the forwarder in the first
place.  I am willing to make an exception to that rule for Greg Woods,
because his is a somewhat unique and existing situation.  Greg, if you
find a loop involving my site, please contact me and I will make
appropriate changes.  However, I still believe that it is the
forwarder's responsibility to [1] get the mail to the destination
host, and [2] gain the permission of any intermediaries that might be
used.

While the Internet does not really restrict UUCP addressing semantics,
neither does anyone else.  Therefore, I have no problem short
circuiting a route.  It is a matter of who will be second guessed -
the sender or every system administrator between the sender and the
destination.  I choose the former, as I believe the latter is much
more ``evil and rude,'' to quote various preachers of the routing
gospel.