From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Feb 28 11:03:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA11643 for isp-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:03:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from sys3.cambridge.uk.psi.net (sys3.cambridge.uk.psi.net [154.32.106.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA11635 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:02:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from sys4.cambridge.uk.psi.net (uucp1.mail.uk.psi.net [154.32.105.26]) by sys3.cambridge.uk.psi.net (8.8.4/) with ESMTP id TAA14629 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:02:54 GMT Received: from nadt.org.uk by sys4.cambridge.uk.psi.net (8.7.5/SMI-5.5-UKPSINet) id SAA14578; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:35:28 GMT Received: from infodev.nadt.org.uk (infodev.nadt.org.uk [194.155.224.205]) by charlie.nadt.org.uk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA04537; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:43:54 GMT Posted-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:43:54 GMT X-Website: http://www.innotts.co.uk/~nadt Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970228174340.006c6a00@wrcmail> X-Sender: robmel@wrcmail X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:43:40 +0000 To: Andy Cowan From: Robin Melville Subject: Re: Exchange Server getting email Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >At 13:57 28/02/97 +0000, you wrote: >>On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Rob Simons wrote: >>>What I do is tell people to get a UUCP gateway program (I usually >> >>This gets my vote too. UUCP is so much more efficient for routine batched >>mail collection. > At 15:18 28/02/97 +0000, Andy Cowan wrote: >In what way - I'm not disagreeing - just curious. Routine dial-up mail transfer works well via uucp because it: * only holds the line open for the duration of the transaction (our average is around 5 mins per weekday @ 28kb/s nominal); * is a batch transfer protocol, so overheads are low; * has been around for ever so is robust; * integrates (fairly) easily with most MTAs; * doesn't use TCP/IP and so is infinitely more secure; * can coexist with autoppp [if we were allowed to which we're not ;)]. The only downside is latency, because mail only gets exchanged when you poll (hourly or whatever). If we had a full time Internet connection, I'd use SMTP, no question. But since we don't, I've served our entire mail domain with uucp at low cost for around 18 months with nary a glitch. Rob. -------------------------------------------------------- Robin Melville, Addiction & Forensic Information Service Nottingham Alcohol & Drug Team (Extn. 49178) Vox: +44 (0)115 952 9478 Fax: +44 (0)115 952 9421 Email: robmel@nadt.org.uk WWW: http://www.innotts.co.uk/nadt/ ---------------------------------------------------------