Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watcgl!imax!dave
From: dave@imax.uucp (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Error-correcting modems & uucp
Message-ID: <1990Apr14.145102.11600@imax.uucp>
Date: 14 Apr 90 14:51:02 GMT
References: <963@frcs.UUCP> <967@frcs.UUCP> <1147@chinacat.Unicom.COM> <1990Apr12.002225.7496@imax.uucp> <1990Apr13.012803.1639@nebulus.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@imax.com (Dave Martindale)
Organization: Imax Systems Corporation, Oakville Ontario
Lines: 19

In article <1990Apr13.012803.1639@nebulus.UUCP> root@nebulus.UUCP (Dennis S. Breckenridge) writes:
>dave@imax.uucp (Dave Martindale) writes:
>
>>the modem's flow-control flag is irrelevant.  So, you don't need to do
>>anything special to turn off flow control for incoming or outgoing uucp
>>connections.
>
>This may be true in some cases but if you run the modem locked at
>19200 you ABSOLUTELY require flow control enabled. What happens is
>uucico will ship a packet of data to the modem and the modem/serial
>side is not ready, characters are dropped and the NAK is sent. This 
>causes a retransmit, and so on and so on...

My experience does not agree with this.  I have driven a Trailblazer Plus
that is about 3 years old now at 19200, and am now driving a T2500,
at 19200 with no hardware flow control, and no problems.  Remember that
my comment applies only to PEP connections using protocol spoofing -
it's not clear that you understood that, since you deleted the context
of the remark.