Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: MNP modems
Message-ID: <7660@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Oct-87 10:12:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: steinmet.7660
Posted: Tue Oct 20 10:12:04 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Oct-87 23:44:49 EDT
References: <3013@husc6.UUCP> <377@cogent.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 24
Keywords: MNP

In article <377@cogent.UUCP> mark@cogent.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
|MNP as a protocol has failed to meet our needs consistently.  Due to several
|aspects of UN*X that MNP design neglects and/or conflicts with, we have never
|gotten an MNP modem to work on our UN*X box.  We went to a different protocol
|altogether for error correction and it worked uright away.

The only problem we have had is calling systems (a) from an MNP modem,
(b) to a system without an MNP modem, (c) with a brain dead speed detect
which gets in a loop when the "are you MNP" message comes in. uucp will
run alright over them, but protocols such as zmodem produce higher
throughput. 
|
|I personally think that MNP is not very good at all and should be abandoned
|by the industry as a standard.

Wonderful! One of the few places where we have a working standard and
you want to dump it. Do you see what has happened in the 9600 baud
market due to lack of standards? MNP works just fine for most users, or
the companies wouldn't offer it. If you don't believe in it, don't use
it.
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me