Hello andrew.

17 Oct 08 22:30, you wrote to me:

 ac> On Thu 2008-10-16 19:00, Russell Tiedt (5:7105/1) wrote to All:

 RT>> For a node, does one have to include all Zones to which one
 RT>> wishes to route mail to, including the default Zone?

 RT>> Example;

 RT>> route hold 5:7105/1 1:* 2:* 3:* 4:* 5:*

 RT>> In the example above, the default Zone is Zone 5, is it required
 RT>> to have 5:* included in the route statement

 ac> I think so, otherwise mail for all nodes in Z5 (with the exception of
 ac> 5:7105/1) probably won't get routed anywhere.  At least that's what I
 ac> would expect to happen.

That is my expectation as well, I am just wondering if HPT supports a 
"default" zone, derived from the node in uses AKA ..

 ac> Probably worth doing just from a safety aspect, in any case.

It is not going to do any harm, if a default zone is supported, which I don't 
think is t he case ...

 ac> Depending on the complexity of your routing it might be worthwhile
 ac> having multiple route statements just so it's clear in your mind
 ac> exactly what's going on when you look at it later:

 ac> Route Hold NoRoute 5:7105/1
 ac> RouteFile Normal NoRoute 5:7105/1

 ac> Route Hold 5:7105/1 5:7105/1
 ac> Route Hold 5:7105/1 5:*

 ac> Route Hold 5:7105/1 1:*
 ac> Route Hold 5:7105/1 2:*
 ac> Route Hold 5:7105/1 3:*
 ac> Route Hold 5:7105/1 4:*

A lot "neater" than my example in a previous message ... :-)

Russell

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5