chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (09/27/88)
One more time. According to erik@naggum.se (Erik Naggum): >It seems that the arguments against [active rerouting] are as follows: > 1. The UUCP maps are out of date, so we act on old (=wrong) data >Case 1. is the fault of the map builders and distribution medium/mode. It does not matter whose fault it is. Because of inaccurate map data, active routers sometimes cause correctly routed mail to bounce. Many postermasters, including me, believe that anything that causes correctly routed mail to bounce is *evil* and *rude*, and must be avoided (figuratively and literally). Thus active rerouting is right out. > 2. UUCP has _explicit_ routing, so leave a user's choice alone >Case 2. is clearly wrong. No, it isn't. UUCP routes are sometimes created by users who know what they're doing. Not all, certainly; but some. And those who know what they're doing should not be penalized for the ignorance of others. > 3. Nodes don't always register properly, so the maps are incomplete >Case 3. is a problem which has to do with sloppy system managers and >people who can't be trusted to do their job right. This is a fact. The inavoidable conclusion is: "The maps are not trustworthy. So don't trust them." How hard to understand can it be?