Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!ncr-sd!greg
From: greg@ncr-sd.UUCP (Greg Noel)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.unix
Subject: Re: Arcane modem configuration
Message-ID: <1183@ncr-sd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Sep-86 21:06:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: ncr-sd.1183
Posted: Tue Sep 23 21:06:22 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Sep-86 03:02:33 EDT
References: <59@houligan.UUCP>
Reply-To: greg@ncr-sd.UUCP (Greg Noel)
Organization: NCR Corporation, San Diego
Lines: 21
Xref: mnetor net.unix-wizards:7953 net.unix:5614

In article <59@houligan.UUCP> dave@murphy.UUCP (Lerxt) writes:
>(Note to anyone who just joined in: this whole section of the discussion is
>applicable to older devices like DZ11's, which do not have the capability to
>issue an interrupt when a modem control signal changes.)

Curiously enough, the DZ11 is the newer device, not the older.  The DH11 (or
actually, its associated DM11) provided modem control interrupts.  I'm told
that RSX-11 was better at polling than responding to interrupts, so I suspect
that the DZ was designed around its limitations.

>......  I also agree
>that in environments where physical security of the lines is a problem, modem
>control should be used on all lines.  ...........
>The point is that modem control simply isn't apporpriate in some environments.
>Please don't remove the option to disable it.

I think you miss the point.  I'm not saying that the option to ignore modem
control should be eliminated -- far from it.  And it's not just the physical
security of the lines, either.  But when you \can/ use modem control, do it.
-- 
-- Greg Noel, NCR Rancho Bernardo    Greg@ncr-sd.UUCP or Greg@nosc.ARPA