Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!aunro!aupair.cs.athabascau.ca!lyndon
From: lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: V.32 vs. PEP for lots of small uucp transfers
Message-ID: <406@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
Date: 5 Nov 90 18:46:55 GMT
References: <6937@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Organization: Athabasca University
Lines: 26

karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes:

>The reason is (almost certainly) that the half-duplex PEP protocol takes
>longer to turn the line around back and forth for the short messages that
>uucp exchanges to negotiate a transfer, plus the short command file that
>accompanies each transfer, than does the full-duplex V.32.  The uucp protocol
>spoofing in the modems doesn't help during this part since it doesn't spoof
>that part of the exchange (and you wouldn't want it to -- you don't want your
>modem acking file transfers that the modem hasn't yet and might not be able to
>get successfully pushed through to your computer.)

Something else to look at is running batched SMTP instead of individual
rmail jobs. This has the advantage of working with PEP only modems, and
gives you even better throughput than running lots of small jobs through
V.32, since it practically eliminates file-complete handshake sequence.

Of course, both you and your neighbour must be running an MTA that supports
this. Smail3 handles this in a very straight forward manner. I'm not sure
if there are any other MTA's that do this right now. It could be added to
sendmail without too much work.

-- 
    Lyndon Nerenberg  VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University
        {alberta,cbmvax,mips}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca

      The only thing open about OSF is their mouth.  --Chuck Musciano