🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KARL.89Jul14145852@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu>, karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes:
> 
> Passive rerouting, when the first specified host in the path is
> unknown, is a violation of the source-route rules as much as active
> rerouting.  If we're going to attach strict source route rules to
> !-paths, then we have to obey those rules.  Those rules say that, if
> you give me
> 	<@a.b,@c.d,@e.f:u@g.h>
> then I must hand the mail _directly_ to a.b.  It doesn't say that I
> may find my own best intermediate-hop route to a.b; it says I have to
> go straight there.

Karl, you're scraping for arguments...if you want to throw insensible
arguments back and forth, do it in alt.flame - we don't need it here.

The rules are set up for INTERNET, not UUCP.  When UUCP steps in, you
have to interpret a bit.  First, if a-b isn't connected directly, but
you can find it, re-route...what's wrong with this?  Our machine does
not run pathalias at all.  However, there are several machines downwind
which do.  It is convenient to send them a partial path so that they can
re-route it efficiently.  On the other hand, there are a number of
connections that pathalias can't find, and thr "rabid rerouter" group
bounce these sites.  So, if I route a message through pathalias, I want
it to put the message where it's going.  But if I send an explicit path,
I want it to follow my directions.  

Please, I think you're getting worried that you're running out of valid
points, and it doesn't become you.



-- 
Les Barstow                   |Bitnet: LMB7421@RITVAX| "I can read your mind,
Phoenix rising...             |UUCP:                 |   and you should be
From the ashes of a lost hope,| ...rutgers!rochester!|   ashamed of yourself!"
To a sky of clear blue.       |    ritcv!ultb!lmb7421| "Stop reading my mind!"