> I've added ROUTING to do what TROUBLE is often used to do.
I question whether this is a good idea -- some providers have a
"routing" mailing list that isn't really intended for public
dissemination and use. For instance, routing@uunet.uu.net and
routing@es.net both bypass their respective NOCs and go straight to
engineering types -- perhaps we need to pick a new name for those
sorts of lists, but I really don't see what having a "routing"
buys us over "noc".
This is the kind of collision that makes this "standard" expensive to
implement. Folks elsewhere use ROUTING as a way to reach the folks
who want to hear about externally visible routing problems; NETCOM
for example advertises this address in its RADB elements. I think
that folks like UUNET and ESNET will have to pick new addresses if
they don't want their engineers getting spammed. Sorry about that.