Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL.EDU!NJG From: NJG@CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL.EDU ("Nick Gimbrone ", WIRDI: Whatever Is Right, Do It) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: KNET 200 Message-ID: <9106011635.AA10794@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 31 May 91 12:06:37 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 16 On Fri, 17 May 91 14:07:36 EDT you said: > Date: Thu, 16 May 1991 22:38 MDT > From: "Frank J. Wancho" > I've reviewed the archives, looking for observations on the KNET > software, and found mixed reactions, with some of the comments from > several years ago quite negative. > What's the current status? Has it been brought up-to-speed, or should >servers. I worked in detail with the SMTP implementation, and I wasn't >impressed - I'd look at the U. Wisconsin TCP/IP implementation. I was recently speaking w/ someone who have both the KNET and IBM TCP/IP products. IBM's product is a fixed up version of the Wisconsin work (function added, performance improved, etc). As of early this year not only does the IBM implementation far surpass KNet in function, it is also now running faster than KNet. I believe that most IBM VM and MVS sites feel that there is but one viable alternative today - IBM's TCP/IP for VM and MVS.