Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!spooky!witr
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert W. Withrow)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: SYSV R4.0 High speed UUCP
Keywords: UUCP V.32 V.42bis PEP
Message-ID: <1991Feb17.195353.25156@rwwa.COM>
Date: 17 Feb 91 19:53:53 GMT
References: <1991Feb10.201122.29918@comp.vuw.ac.nz> <1991Feb15.054602.913@jadpc.cts.com> <24318@netcom.COM>
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Lines: 27

In article <24318@netcom.COM> gandrews@netcom.COM (Greg Andrews) writes:

>Also, the assertion that modem error correction "interferes" with uucp
>is probably not right.  There have been a lot of reports that error
>correction caused trouble with uucp, but just as many reports that it
>seems to work fine (my own experience).

Yes, and there is the rub.  My interpretation is that each modem
manufacturer has implemented V.42/V.42bis slightly differently (this
was the gist of a Byte review of these modems) leading to
incompatabilities.  I know for a fact that I cannot do 9600 BPS UUCP
using a Practical Periphials modem to a Telebit T2500 when using
V.42(bis) LAP-M/compression.  If I turn off the V.42/bis stuff the
transfer works OK.

The annoying thing is that you get into a p***ing match where both
modem manufacturers swear that their modem is correct and the other guy
is in the wrong.  In my case there are 6 parties involved:  1)Me,
2)Intel (for the OS), 3)UUNET (for their computer), 4)Telebit,
5)Practical Periperals, and 6)the TELCO.

And numbers 2 throug 6 have been precious little help in getting the
problem solved!
-- 
---
 Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott MA 01907 USA
 Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Uucp: witr@rwwa.COM