Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!ked
From: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: xyzmodem problems
Message-ID: <24552@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 18 May 89 04:15:11 GMT
References: <24404@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1399@bucket.UUCP> <765@omen.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Davis
Lines: 25

In article <765@omen.UUCP> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes:
>In article <1399@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:
>:To run [x|y|z]modem you must be using hardware flow control throughout.
>:Software flow control will kill the xfer.
>
>Close, but no cigar. ZMODEM protects the four flow control characters.

As I indicated in my "thanks" posting, zmodem will work but only if the
receiving side uses

rz -e

which, according to the documentation, quotes all control characters.
Whether this also produces quoting of characters with the 8-th bit on,
is not stated.

By the way, am I "wrong" in thinking that the apparent assumption of a
clear eight-bit path in the [xy]modem protocols represents {naive|
brain-dead|criminally stupid} programming? Was there something
different about the world when these protocols were written that a
clear eight-bit path could be assumed? Maybe because I'm an historian
and not a programmer, I would start from the assumption that any
communications protocol ought to have as a fall back option nothing
better than a BCD character set. (Anything less, and you may as well
revert to carrier pigeons.)