From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Mar 5 16:24:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA24284 for isp-outgoing; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 16:24:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from tok.qiv.com ([204.214.141.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA24269 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 16:24:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by tok.qiv.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with UUCP id SAA18534; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 18:23:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (jdn@localhost) by acp.qiv.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA00541; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:40:27 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: acp.qiv.com: jdn owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:40:27 -0600 (CST) From: "Jay D. Nelson" To: Robin Melville cc: Andy Cowan , freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Exchange Server getting email In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970228174340.006c6a00@wrcmail> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I'll vote for UUCP as well. I routinely see twice the throughput with dialup UUCP vs. TCP/IP. If the only reason a customer connects is for mail, connect time is cut in half and if a connect fails, the user rarely notices. He also doesn't need an IP address. -- Jay On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Robin Melville wrote: -> ->>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/ ->--------------------------------------------------------- ->