Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: UUCP Protocols
Keywords: uucp, protocols
Message-ID: <7322@auspex.auspex.com>
Date: 22 Apr 91 17:43:04 GMT
References: <1991Apr19.125453.22@cutler.uucp> <1407@ncrnorw.Norway.NCR.NO>
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 21

>I do not know of any other uucp-protocols, than e/f/g.

"t" - similar in concept to "e"; the "t" stands, as I remember, for
"TCP/IP" - Rick Adams invented it when at CCI, to make UUCP-over-TCP run
faster than it did when using the "g" protocol.

There are a couple of differences between it and "e"; as I remember,
they are that 1) they byte count is sent in network-byte-order binary,
rather than printable ASCII, and 2) some other difference that I don't
remember except that "t" does it a bit better than "e".

"x" - some kind of UUCP-on-X.25 implementation that AT&T had; I don't
know if they ever released it in source form, and I've heard it had lots
of problems.

"G" - I think this is a "g" variant that can handle bigger packets (the
problem with negotiating a bigger packet size in "g", as I remember, is
that some "g"-protocol implementations crash if you give them packets
that are too big; the idea of having a separate "G" is to avoid
negotiating a too-large packet size with an implementation that can't
cope).