tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) (07/08/89)
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" Maynard) (07/09/89)
In article <7102@ki4pv.uucp> tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) writes: >In article <59767@uunet.UU.NET>, rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams) writes: >) 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). I'll add one more requirement to 'optimal routing': that it reach its intended destination. I religiously avoid sending non-.edu mail via one particular route out of my site because I know it will get sent to the Black Hole of Rutgers, pass the event horizon, and never be seen again. To me, even though the mail may take an extra hop or two, I am reasonably sure it will get where I intended it to go, and that is optimal. Lost mail is not optimal. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- internet: jay@splut.conmicro.com | Richard Sexton, proud Texan.