Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!pacbell!amdahl!netcom!gandrews
From: gandrews@netcom.COM (Greg Andrews)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm
Subject: Kermit and MNP5 (was Re: What sense has MNP5?)
Summary: Kermit wouldn't do any better than other protocols.
Keywords: MNP5 ADB-Modem Teleport Compression
Message-ID: <1991Apr6.034020.6816@netcom.COM>
Date: 6 Apr 91 03:40:20 GMT
References: <4470@gmdzi.gmd.de> <1991Apr5.145642.3715@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
Lines: 19

In article <1991Apr5.145642.3715@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes:
>
>Kermit uses 7-bit data, right?  MNP-5 would help on such transfers.
>

Kermit wouldn't do any better.  Sure it encodes the data into printable
characters, but that doesn't make the data redundant.

If the data was already compressed, the character patterns can't be
compressed further.  No matter how you re-code the data bytes, the
*patterns* can't be compressed.  Using Kermit won't help you get
better throughput over MNP5 links.


-- 
.------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|  Greg Andrews   |       UUCP: {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!gandrews    |
|                 |   Internet: gandrews@netcom.COM                      |
`------------------------------------------------------------------------'