Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!van-bc!sl
From: sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: USR 9600 baud dual standard
Message-ID: <2502@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca>
Date: 11 Oct 90 02:32:32 GMT
References: <1990Sep30.024433.28717@athena.mit.edu> <2461@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> <1990Oct9.161454.10476@cbnews.att.com>
Organization: USENET Public Access, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 18

In article <1990Oct9.161454.10476@cbnews.att.com> mjs@cbnews.att.com (martin.j.shannon) writes:
>In article <2461@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca>, sl@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>> In article <1990Oct8.195418.1817@cbnews.att.com> mjs@cbnews.att.com (martin.j.shannon) writes:
>> 
>I beg to differ.  'e' protocol does *NO* *ERROR* *CHECKING*.  This is

Hm. Now if I could just find an off the shelf uucp that offer's 'e' for my
Xenix system, or my SCO UNIX system. Or any of the standard System V
platforms. Any idea when AT&T will be offerring 'e' as a standard part of
their uucico? You're in a better position than I am to know. I'd love to be
able to use 'e'. But I'm stuck with all of these inferior type uucico's
which only have 'g'. So I guess I just assume that if most uucp's don't
offer 'e' then the default has to be 'g'. I'd love to hear different though.
Keep us informed. Thanks.

-- 
Stuart Lynne	Unifax Communications Inc.
		...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice)     	sl@wimsey.bc.ca