Fri, 15 Jul 88 08:50:04 EDT
Paul Traina writes:
>>Pardon my ignorance, but I'm confused about running uucp over TCP links.
>>My question is why? The ftp/smtp/bsmtp interface seems much better for
>>handling files & mail, and for those who run it, the rsh interface seems
>>better than uux. So, I ignorantly ask, why do some folk run uucp over TCP?
>>There must be some sort of intelligent reason it was added...(?)
>>My only guess would be for folks running TCP terminal servers hooked into
>>dial-in/dial-out modems .. the remote site dials into the modem, goes via
>>tcp to the host, and runs uucp as if the modem was direct-connected to
>>Since I don't run 4.3 myself (Sun, where are you? Get real.) I don't have
>>the benefit of a 4.3 doc set to explain why I want TCP/UUCP.
Yes, there is an intelligent reason for the question that addresses a
specific problem. The problem that is being addressed by email@example.com
is that remote users who do not have host access to the MILNET need to be able
to transfer files to a host on the MILNET. These remote users are world-wide.
Therefore, UUCP via a TAC (therefore TELNET) is being explored, not
UUCP via TCP.
We have tried Kermit via a TAC, and are exploring UUCP as an alternative
solution. Any other possible solutions to this problem would be greatly
Donnie R. Love
Washington Navy Yard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:42:51 GMT