Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip:9647 comp.org.usenix:1235 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.org.usenix Subject: Re: Networks considered harmful/Re: USENIX board studies UUCP Message-ID: <7375@ficc.uu.net> Date: 20 Dec 89 16:04:28 GMT References: <8912200236.AA25652@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 30 In article <8912200236.AA25652@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> cire@CISCO.COM (cire|eric) writes: > Yes Computer based telecommunications has a great deal of more utility > than FAX but I don't think that is the point. You must first make the > connection before all that starts making a difference. OK. Let's do it. What should the communications look like? UUCP? Dial-up SLIP? Or something more like FIDO? All we need to do is agree on a standard and then we can start saying: mail 7134385018!peter Or: mail peter@7134385018.PHONE And folks with home PCs can do the same. Just make it simple enough that any bozo with a copy of PCTalk can hack it up. Chat scripts for UUCP, and baud rates, are the biggest problem. How about this: To start up the session, you need to send the string "email". This should handle the login problems. You keep sending this string with a 1 second delay until you get a protocol startup... so you'd make your email login "email" with password (if any) "email". A PC could just start straight up with the protocol. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com