🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <59767@uunet.UU.NET>, rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams) writes:
jk-) As I understand it, the argument for re-routing and short-circuiting
jk-) revolves around the idea that some people feel they know how
jk-) to route mail better than the people who started the mail off.
) Does anyone seriously claim that this is not true?
Yes, I would claim that it is not true that a re-router  reliably
knows  more  about  mail  routing than the person who started the
mail off.

It doesn't take a very bright person to know how to  route  mail,
after  all  (comments  about management aside); all it takes is a
reasonably intelligent postmaster at the  originating  site.   He
arranges  for  some  useful  set of maps to be available and used
automatically, teaches his users to write  "name@dest.site",  and
voila! the user has learned to route mail.

In order for  the  re-router  to  justify  his  action,  he  must
demonstrate that his maps are better than those used to route the
mail originally.  Further, in  order  to  be  considered  a  good
person, he must assure that his re-routings NEVER cause a problem
which would not exist had he not re-routed.

Judging from the steady stream  of  complaints  about  rabid  re-
routers, I would guess that re-routers have failed on this second
requirement.

) I'm not arguing in favor of rerouting, but  I can't conceive of
) even a tiny fraction of mail be routed optimally to begin with.
Define optimally.  Here, to give you a start, is  how  we  define
it.   We  say  that  mail  is  routed  optimally  if it is routed
according to the published  maps,  as  amended  by  local  wisdom
(local map files).  Most if not all mail coming out of here is so
routed, because the mailer takes care of such details.
-- 
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner  ...!bpa!cdin-1!ki4pv!tanner
or...  {allegra killer gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner