Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!ulysses!smb From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) Newsgroups: net.mail Subject: Re: Area-code as uucp domains Message-ID: <758@ulysses.UUCP> Date: Sat, 28-Jan-84 20:39:42 EST Article-I.D.: ulysses.758 Posted: Sat Jan 28 20:39:42 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 2-Feb-84 01:35:14 EST References: <426@psuvax.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 12 I wrestled with the same routing decisions when I wrote pathalias. I finally ended up implementing 3 modes: dumb (just pass the message on to the next host), simple (route to the left-most host), and smart (route to the right-most known host). Rmail used simple routing; locally-generated mail used smart routing (to handle netnews replies). Note that if you do any sort of routing on locally-generated routing, you're obligated to have rmail do at least simple routing, so that replies work right. That is, if I'm at site A and send a note to B!foo and C!bar, and B!foo replies to both of us, that reply will go to A!me and A!C!bar. But if C were routed by my mailer over several hops, the reply won't make it. I didn't use smart routing in rmail because I didn't want to break loop tests or deliberately-routed mail passing through.