Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.modems:9133 sci.crypt:4446 Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!stl!robobar!ronald From: ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,sci.crypt Subject: Re: What do you think about security functions in modems? Message-ID: <1991Apr7.161159.22213@robobar.co.uk> Date: 7 Apr 91 16:11:59 GMT References: <3888.27f10f22@hayes.uucp> <1991Apr4.144615.22814@dce.ie> Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND. Lines: 25 ch@dce.ie (Charles Bryant) writes: > I happen to think its crazy to use > compression in the modem when neither end is a terminal since it just > shifts the bottleneck from the phone line to the PC->modem link Well, if your iron can drive the modem at 38,400, and the modem's only [heh] a V.32, it's not _too_ bad :-) > but that > dosen't stop people from running ZMODEM over a compressed link insteqad > of compressing the file first. Convenience, of course. Actually, if they're using anything other than an *ancient* ZMODEM, ZMODEM itself can be asked to do the compression, which gets around the convenience problem, though I don't know how generally good its algorithm is. I've only ever used it for PostScript[TM] files, and it works OK for that. > If you like the opinions expressed in this message, they may be available > for rent - contact your local sales office. Low interest deals available. Ah yes, but does DCE get a cut ? :-) -- Ronald Khoo +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)