Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!nrossi
From: nrossi@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Nick Rossi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
Subject: Re: Kermit Question
Message-ID: <11571@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: 5 Apr 91 23:36:43 GMT
References: <"910405094335.72560.3467.EHE27-1"@CompuServe.COM> <1991Apr5.175215.23763@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1991Apr5.201357.7658@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Lines: 25

In article <1991Apr5.201357.7658@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> iachetta@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard N Iachetta) writes:
>What is the latest version of Kermit 64/128?  Basically what I need to know
>is, is there a version that will support packet lengths longer than 94 bytes
>(I think that is the length.  If its not, it is close).  Is it just me or does
>that seem to be a ridiculous packet length.  The overhead between packets is
>longer than the packet transmission time.  Thanks in advance.
>
>Rich
>iachetta@ecn.purdue.edu


For standard Kermit, the maximum packet length is 94 bytes.  Yes, there is
a lot of overhead in Kermit which makes it a very inefficient protocol (which
is why I dislike it so much).  But it was designed to operate on ANY
computer environment, by forcing packets to consist of only printable 
characters and such.  I seem to recall using a Kermit program on an IBM which
was sending 1024 byte packets, but perhaps I was looking at the wrong thing
on the screen or something, as I haven't been able to reproduce it.

 ------------------------------        +---------------------------------+
        Nick Rossi, '93                |              SONY               |
 ------------------------------        |                                 |
      Harvey Mudd College              |   Because caucasians are just   |
 (ooo HELL is a place on earth)        |         too damn tall.          |
 ------------------------------        +---------------------------------+