[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: UUCP (was Re: Distros (byte-ranging))

To: luci-discuss@luci.org
Subject: Re: UUCP (was Re: Distros (byte-ranging))
From: Gary <gary-list-luci@mygirlfriday.info>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:35:18 -0600
In-Reply-To: <20021110175652.GA8683@osiris.silug.org>; from steve@silug.org on Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 11:56:52AM -0600
Mail-Followup-To: luci-discuss@luci.org
Organization: Hardly
Organization: Linux Users of Central Illinois
References: <200211101634.gAAGYPH16040@web5.valuenet.net> <20021110175652.GA8683@osiris.silug.org>
Reply-To: luci-discuss@luci.org
Sender: luci-discuss-owner@luci.org
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i

On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 11:56:52AM -0600 or thereabouts, Steven Pritchard wrote:
> I recently saw a really good use of UUCP...  Somebody with a Unix box
> of some sort (SCO or Linux) in their stores, with stores scattered
 
> They told me that they testing using PPP and doing everything over
> TCP, but apparently the extra negotiation combined with the overhead
> of doing everything over TCP made even the shortest call over a
> minute.
> 
> So apparently UUCP is still fairly well suited for what it was
> designed for...

According to Wietse Venema, the author of Postfix, that is his favorite
protocol.


-- 
Best regards,
Gary


-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@luci.org with
"unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.

References:
- Re: Distros (byte-ranging)
  - From: mike808@users.sourceforge.net
- UUCP (was Re: Distros (byte-ranging))
  - From: Steven Pritchard <steve@silug.org>

Prev by Date: UUCP (was Re: Distros (byte-ranging))
Next by Date: Re: Distros (byte-ranging)
Prev by thread: UUCP (was Re: Distros (byte-ranging))
Next by thread: Re: UUCP (was Re: Distros (byte-ranging))
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread