Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:25360 comp.dcom.modems:3473 comp.mail.uucp:2793
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!apple!voder!pyramid!csg
From: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst)
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: <60827@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 28 Feb 89 01:43:20 GMT
References: <7298@june.cs.washington.edu> <[1861.5]karl@ddsw1.comp.ibmpc;1> <5138@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Reply-To: csg@pyramid.UUCP (Carl S. Gutekunst)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 19

In article <5138@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes:
>The packet size information is exchanged during the handshake process, but
>something isn't handled quite right.

True. There are hardwired constants in places, and fixed size buffers.

>Maybe some combinations work - HDB/HDB or BSD/BSD.

Nope. Sometimes you get lucky, but that's about it.

>We need a good PD uucp implementation that does it right.  

Several people have done this in their own UUCP's. Just don't call your new
protocol 'g', or you'll break all the existing implementations. The better
solution for modems like the HST is a streaming protocol, like 'f' but more
robust and less overhead. I keep toying with this idea, as does Rick Adams,
but we never get around to an implementation.

<csg>