Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!bbn!news
From: news@bbn.COM (News system owner ID)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: UUCP Protocols, "efGxd" ... and a Telebit Trailblazer Question.
Message-ID: <48167@bbn.COM>
Date: 13 Nov 89 22:48:38 GMT
References: <1014@icus.islp.ny.us> <747@lakart.UUCP> <1016@maxim.erbe.se>
Reply-To: pplacewa@capella.bbn.com (Paul W Placeway)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 17

In article <1016@maxim.erbe.se> prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson) writes:
< ... We have tried using the uucp 'e' protocol over such a
< link (with MNP enabled). No errors at this time.

You are "gettin' lucky" then.  Even if you have a modem-to-modem error
free connection, and perfect flow control between each modem and
computer, there is STILL a non-zero chance of loosing a bit or two in
the cables.  Therefore, you MUST use a protocol that checks the data
END-TO-END (not just modem-to-modem).  Doing otherwize is for PC
weenies who don't know better (and who end up hand-checking the files
they download anyway).

Look at it this way: RAM doesn't fail often, but it does every once in
a while.  Would you rather run memory without any checking, memory
with parity, or memory with error-correction?

		-- Paul Placeway <PPlaceway@bbn.com>