Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.modems:2538 comp.mail.uucp:2001 Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.mail.uucp Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: UUCP g stats (really: "f" with MNP?) Message-ID: <1988Sep29.174529.26357@utzoo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <183@arnold.UUCP> <1988Sep20.184054.2403@utzoo.uucp> <184@arnold.UUCP> <1988Sep25.015301.768@utzoo.uucp> <16257@onfcanim.UUCP> <944@oswego.Oswego.EDU> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 88 17:45:29 GMT In article <944@oswego.Oswego.EDU> ostroff@oswego.oswego.edu.UUCP (Boyd Ostroff) writes: >Since many of the new modems have MNP error checking/correction in >hardware/firmware, would it be possible to run UUCP without any packetizing >or error checking with MNP in "reliable" mode? It's not necessarily a good idea. Remember that you still have connections from modem to host on both ends: those connections are not necessarily 100% error-free, especially when flow control is minimal and characters are pouring in at high speed. >...Would it be >necessary to recompile the source for uucico on *both* ends of the connection >to get this to work? In other words, if system #1 has a source license and >can re-compile uucico to use F protocol (or whatever), will system #2 use >F when it is called? If you don't have uucico source, is there any way to >use a protocol other than G? Not unless your system supplier has supplied a uucico with f protocol in it. The two uucicos negotiate protocol at the beginning of the conversation; both must speak a protocol before either will use it. We're not talking about minor differences in usage here -- the different protocols are completely different languages. -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu