Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ira.uka.de!smurf!urlichs
From: urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs)
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a uucp daemon?
Message-ID: <DYK-NDN@smurf.sub.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 19:13:29    
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
References: <8295@auspex.auspex.com> <9106120113.AA16777@toaster.SFSU.EDU> <165451@felix.UUCP>
Lines: 23

In comp.protocols.tcp-ip, article <165451@felix.UUCP>,
  darnold@felix.UUCP (Dave Arnold) writes:
< In article <9106120113.AA16777@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU writes:
< >Will it interoperate with BSD uucpd?  Not out of the box.  For
< >one, AT&T's code uses 'e' protocol rather than 't' protocol over
< >TCP connections.
< 
< But, what's to stop me from running 'g' over TCP connections?

Nobody, assuming that you run it through a pty.

Directly attaching stdin/out to uucico won't work because it wants to issue
several ioctls which are only defined for terminals. This holds for "e"
protocol if the vendor hasn't changed his copy; thererfore a direct
connection between AT&T-UUCP and BSD-UUCP can't work..

Don't forget, however, that almost any protocol is more efficient than g when
run over a TCP path, except possibly "x" which relies on empty packets and
therefore won't work at all.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs -- urlichs@smurf.sub.org -- urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de     /(o\
Humboldtstrasse 7 - 7500 Karlsruhe 1 - FRG -- +49-721-621127(0700-2330)   \o)/
