Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!rphroy!teemc!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake
From: shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: What should a new UUCP protocol do?
Message-ID: <149@raysnec.UUCP>
Date: 23 Nov 90 14:23:14 GMT
References: <1889.2739aa0d@dcs.simpact.com> <+2m8g2.lb1@smurf.sub.org> <p6v9g2.[q5@smurf.sub.org> <791@actsn.fay.ar.us> <1990Nov21.230651.25621@bkj386.uucp>
Organization: IRS/CI - Technical Solutions Branch
Lines: 13

anton@bkj386.uucp (Anton Aylward) writes:

>I have often stated that the bulk of UUCP should be done with shell not with C.

	[writer's arguments for this proposition]

>So why aren't we doing this ?


	Since the original UUCP implementation *was* written using shells,
	it might be more accurate to ask "why aren't we doing this any longer?"
	The answer, of course, is that it's much less efficient, and much less
	secure, than a compiled implementation.