Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip:9681 comp.org.usenix:1241 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!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: <7387@ficc.uu.net> Date: 21 Dec 89 17:42:56 GMT References: <8912200236.AA25652@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <7375@ficc.uu.net> <106@van-bc.UUCP> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 28 In article <106@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: > First anything you do shouldn't disenfranchise the existing successful base > that is using fax technology. Your new protocol should be able to send > "email" to a fax machine and receive and print a fax from a fax machine. I disagree. The main consideration should be to avoid disenfranchising the people currently using existing email systems. This should be something that someone with a PC and a $100 modem can hook into. This isn't intended to be an enhancement to FAX, but an enhancement to email: UUCP, SMTP, MCI-Mail, Compuserve, and so on. > Of course this implies that you'll need a V.29 modem and be able to support > the T.30 protocols. Which is why it's pretty much out of the question. These are relatively expensive modems and definitely complex protocols. This is out of reach of the majority of people who currently use email: individual computer hobbyists with PCs. And the end product can be built a LOT cheaper. An IBM-PC clone with a 1200 baud internal modem is in the few hundred dollar range. And then there are all the people with Commodore-64s. You're talking a complete system that costs less than a FAX modem alone. -- `-_-' 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