Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:25332 comp.dcom.modems:3468 comp.mail.uucp:2792
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!b-tech!zeeff
From: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.dcom.modems,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Major Modem Woe: THE 9600B modem no good for interactive use
Message-ID: <5138@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Date: 27 Feb 89 14:38:06 GMT
References: <7298@june.cs.washington.edu> <[1861.5]karl@ddsw1.comp.ibmpc;1>
Reply-To: zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff)
Organization: Branch Technology Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 18

In article <[1861.5]karl@ddsw1.comp.ibmpc;1> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM ([Karl Denninger]) writes:
>Without help the HSTs do TERRIBLY on uucp calls, as the back-channel is not 
>big enough to pass the "acks" without turning around the line.
>

It's too bad that current implementations of uucp have problems with 
using larger packet sizes.  The packet size information is exchanged 
during the handshake process, but something isn't handled quite 
right.  Maybe some combinations work - HDB/HDB or BSD/BSD.  We need a 
good PD uucp implementation that does it right.  

A 256 byte packet size would make a big difference for HST modems (the 
ack would fit in the back channel) and for people using PC Pursuit.  


-- 
  Jon Zeeff			zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us
  Ann Arbor, MI			mailrus!b-tech!zeeff