From owner-freebsd-isp  Sat Jan 11 09:17:10 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA24514
          for isp-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 09:17:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from horst.bfd.com (horst.bfd.com [204.160.242.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id JAA24507
          for <freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 09:17:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harlie (bastion.bfd.com [204.160.242.14]) by horst.bfd.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA01785; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 09:15:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 09:15:41 -0800 (PST)
From: "Eric J. Schwertfeger" <ejs@bfd.com>
X-Sender: ejs@harlie
To: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" <michaelv@MindBender.serv.net>
cc: Jim Riffle <rif@ns.kconline.com>, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: MS Exchange client 
In-Reply-To: <199701110348.TAA20750@MindBender.serv.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970111090728.8816A-100000@harlie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk



On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com wrote:

> I'm not sure why you say "Instead of having the IMC use uucp"...  It
> IS an SMTP gateway, why would it do UUCP?

Because Microsoft has historically favored UUCP over SMTP, and tended to
hide UUCP behind the scenes on many of their mail gateway products.   
Which I guess at is at least better than WP's 3.X gateway, that between
two PO's would only transfer X messages per call, and if you had X+1 to
transfer, required two calls.  Oh, and a call to transfer 1 message lasted
the same length as a call to transfer X messages.

I've always been puzzled by the PC Industry's insistence on reinventing
the wheel rather than borrowing mature unix/mainframe technology.