Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!oliveb!sun!sordid!mms
From: mms%sordid@Sun.COM (Michael Silverstein)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Telix
Summary: It's good, but not perfect
Keywords: telix
Message-ID: <84649@sun.uucp>
Date: 10 Jan 89 21:59:06 GMT
References: <5269@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: mms@sun.UUCP (Michael Silverstein)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 26

In article <5269@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> jwbirdsa@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James Webster Birdsall) writes:
>*> 
>*>    In response to the argument over whether Telix is any good or not:
>*> It seems to be OK but it can't handle 8N1! Or, rather, it can handle 8N1
>*> but you have to leave the setting as 7E1 or get garbage on the screen.
>*> I have called known 8N1 numbers and used zmodem (which requires 8-bit
>*> connection) and gotten a valid file, but I had to leave Telix set at
>*> 7E1.
>*>    Other than that, Telix seems OK, if a bit over-featured.

I found the same thing! I started using Telix, & it seemed that
some sites had switched to 7E1. Something's a bit strange, however;
BBS's running RBBS are still accessible with 8N1.

Another minor possible complaint: The Kermit options don't include
block check level 3 (CRC). So file transfers are done with single
byte check sums.

Overall, I agree. Telix is pretty good. Have you noticed that it
owes alot to Qmodem? It has similar features, key definitions, and
"look and feel"

*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
|    /\/\ike Silverstein    | This can't be deja vous. Things are more like  |
| sun!mms -or- mms@sun.com  |  they are now, than they've ever been before!  |
*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*