🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: alt.bbs.waffle
Article #152

Re: Zmodem NOT recommended (was Re: f,e-protocol in 1.65)

#152
From: Phil Ross
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:48
40 lines
2723 bytes
david@csource.oz.au (david nugent) writes:

> pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley) writes:
> 
> > I would strongly recommend AGAINST using Zmodem for your UUCP
> > transport layer.  This is my opinion only, of course.
> > Zmodem works well for its intended purpose; user-supervised
> > uploads/downloads.
>
> It's just that for the last 5 years I've been doing "unattended transfers"
> with FidoNet mailers using ZModem as the base file transfer protocol.
> Long distance (gasp!) transfers included. You can include me amongst the
> 16,000 odd FidoNet systems in the world and add another few thousand for
> members of other networks using the same technology.
> 
> Your claim is spurious. I'm not denying that there is a very real
> possibility that you're sending it a hung system, but in real life
> if doesn't often happen, or is usually accompanied by loss of carrier.
> I see nothing wrong with a ZModem variant which is incorporated into
> uucico for systems that can use it. Certainly the error correction is
> better that uucp-g, so it's better for transfer of larger block sizes
> (there is a significant statistical difference between the error
> detection schemes), and the file resume capability, transparency
> over links using software flow control and auto-resizing of blocks
> to suit line conditions is definitely worth it.

Fine fine fine fine.  Argue all you like.  But Tom Dell may well see this
argument as a waste of time, and you guys aren't going to get the feature
you want / don't want by arguing about it.  For those of you that want Zmodem,
but have to put up with UUCP-g protocol, do something about it!
Do some tests, record the results and post them here.  Test what happens
if the remote end drops carrier.  Test error recovery, test speed, test
everything.  I'm sure Tom Dell would consider making it a feature of Waffle
if he had some proof that it would be worth his while.

--
cybapunk@hovel.welly.gen.nz    X Phil Ross
cybapunk@tornado.welly.gen.nz  X Sysop of The Hovel BBS
cybapunk@sideways.welly.gen.nz X Author of Lords And Ladies, _THE_ BBS door!
[Monday: In Christian countries, the day after the league game.]
Technical Details
Message-ID: <9m1sLB2w165w@hovel.welly.gen.nz>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!tornado!hovel!cybapunk
References: <1Ba1iB2w165w@csource.oz.au>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!tornado!hovel!cybapunk
Newsgroups: alt.bbs.waffle
Subject: Re: Zmodem NOT recommended (was Re: f,e-protocol in 1.65)
Message-ID: <9m1sLB2w165w@hovel.welly.gen.nz>
From: cybapunk@hovel.welly.gen.nz (Phil Ross)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 18:48:19 GMT
References: <1Ba1iB2w165w@csource.oz.au>
Distribution: World
Organization: The Hovel Bulletin Board System
Keywords: Arguments
Summary: Zmodem over UUCP-g
Lines: 40