From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Jun 1 14:46:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA06465 for chat-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from diazepam.gnu.ai.mit.edu (joelh@diazepam.gnu.ai.mit.edu [128.52.46.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA06460 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 14:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by diazepam.gnu.ai.mit.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12GNU) id RAA32419; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 17:45:58 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 17:45:58 -0400 Message-Id: <199706012145.RAA32419@diazepam.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: giles@nemeton.com.au CC: dgy@rtd.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: <199705302355.JAA00230@topaz.nemeton.com.au> (message from Giles Lean on Sat, 31 May 1997 09:55:17 +1000) Subject: Re: uucp uid's From: Joel Ray Holveck Reply-to: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> UUCP itself is a dinosaur. Yet, I see several places that use UUCP as >> their sole connection to the electronic world. Kinda tough to force >> a client/customer to do things *your* way when *he's* paying the >> bills! :> >Hey, there's lots of money in dinosaurs! Isn't there a movie or >something? :-) >UUCP has a little life in it yet, as it is easier to secure than >dialup IP and is handy for the rare occasion when reliable spooling >and data transfer is required over an intermittent connection. I agree. For a lot of tasks, uucp is considerably nicer than trying to deal with all sorts of PPP and POP and other protocols, particularly across a fairly static network of Unix boxes. -- http://www.wp.com/piquan --- Joel Ray Holveck --- joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu All my opinions are my own, not the Free Software Foundation's. Second law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation -- core dumped