Re: [OT2]: UUCP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Block" <jpb@creol.ucf.edu>
To: "Joris Lambrecht" <jlambrec@landis.be>
Cc: "'Stephan Kulka'" <e9626471@student.tuwien.ac.at>; "Debian User
Mailingliste" <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: [OT]: UUCP
> Joris Lambrecht wrote:
> >
> > UUCP stands for Unix-to-Unix-CoPy
> >
> > I've used it nearly 8 yrs ago in a specific situation, even then it was
> > considered out-dated. I figure it's mostly replaced by TCP/IP on all
> > devices. From what i remember (did not use it since then) it's easy
(what's
> > in a word) to set up but only support serial/modem lines, hence is
rather
> > slow.
> >
> > NFS is also one of the protocols wich started replacing UUCP back then
in
> > 19993/1994.
> >
> > I must add this has been a real long time and i'm not up-to-speed with
> > eventual current UUCP features/implementations but i suggest you take a
look
> > at it from an historical point of view :-)
>
> UUCP also works quite well over TCP/IP and is very handy for getting
> your domain's mail if you don't have a static IP.
>
> jpb
> --
> Joe Block <jpb@creol.ucf.edu>
> University of Central Florida School of Optics/CREOL
> Network/Systems Administrator
>
> Social graces are the packet headers of everyday life.
precisely, encapsulation is required though as with any
other non-routable protocol, IPX, Netbeui
but it is very much possible and reliable too, secure if you
only run netbeui on the LAN. (but eck, what am I talking
about, that is a M$ only protocol, patented? does anyone
know??)
Reply to: