Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Networks considered harmful Message-ID: <7419@ficc.uu.net> Date: 26 Dec 89 15:46:16 GMT References: <44942@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <8912221738.AA09309@world.std.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 24 In article <8912221738.AA09309@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > You could hook up two offices with faxes in the beginning and it was > enough to justify the boxes even if there weren't a lot of other faxes > out there to talk to, I suspect e-mail has a higher critical threshold > of utility. That's why I'm arguing for an email standard built around UUCP. It already uses the PSTN. The only problem with UUCP is that the destination phone number is hard coded into the system... you can't casually send a message to 7134385018, but you can put that in your system file and send a message to sugar.hackercorp.com. The other problem is customising the chat script. That needs to be standardised (login email password email), and gettys that need weird things like BREAK to lock baud rate need to be fixed. That's largely been done. Then you can say "now your salesemen out in the feild can call in and get their mail at odd hours... and automatically provide a phone number they can be reached...". Bingo... an application of immediate utility to many middling to large businesses. -- `-_-' 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