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