Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!WNYOSI2.ARPA!dlove From: dlove@WNYOSI2.ARPA Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: UUCP over TAC Message-ID: <8807160219.AA19695@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 15 Jul 88 12:50:04 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 32 Paul Traina writes: >>Pardon my ignorance, but I'm confused about running uucp over TCP links. >>My question is why? The ftp/smtp/bsmtp interface seems much better for >>handling files & mail, and for those who run it, the rsh interface seems >>better than uux. So, I ignorantly ask, why do some folk run uucp over TCP? >>There must be some sort of intelligent reason it was added...(?) >>My only guess would be for folks running TCP terminal servers hooked into >>dial-in/dial-out modems .. the remote site dials into the modem, goes via >>tcp to the host, and runs uucp as if the modem was direct-connected to >>the host. >>Since I don't run 4.3 myself (Sun, where are you? Get real.) I don't have >>the benefit of a 4.3 doc set to explain why I want TCP/UUCP. Yes, there is an intelligent reason for the question that addresses a specific problem. The problem that is being addressed by lou@wnyosi2.arpa is that remote users who do not have host access to the MILNET need to be able to transfer files to a host on the MILNET. These remote users are world-wide. Therefore, UUCP via a TAC (therefore TELNET) is being explored, not UUCP via TCP. We have tried Kermit via a TAC, and are exploring UUCP as an alternative solution. Any other possible solutions to this problem would be greatly appreciated. Donnie R. Love NetWorks One Washington Navy Yard Washington D.C.