10 Mar
2017
10 Mar
'17
8:28 p.m.
Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon(a)orthanc.ca> writes:
So if we are going to talk UUCP, how can we not bring
up the protocol, and it's beloved behaviour, in certain implementations.
'g' protocol was what everyone ran. 64 byte packets, in a three packet window.
By default. But 'g' could really race along, if provoked. The window could
slide up to seven! Unless you were running Xenix, where that provoked a core dump. On
most systems, increasing the window size meant binary patching uucico.
I fuzzily remember 'g' implementations that could handle packets up to 256
bytes, but I can't remember now if the basic (pre-HDB) UUCP could deal with that.
HDB cleaned up a lot of things. While complicating the configuration files to no end.
In parallel to all this, Rick Adams was pounding the living daylights out of the BSD UUCP
code. That which ran on seismo. Then uunet.
-- uunet!ncc!lyndon (so many uucp path sigs ...)
Back a long time ago, I ran OS/9 on a 6809E Tandy Color Computer 3. The
relationship to Unix is that it was obviously inspired by it, especially
Vx where x <= 6 [or perhaps 4 or 5, the block diagrams describing OS/9
could have described the older Unix systems ]. One of the items I
worked on quite extensively was the UUCP implementation. I didn't write
the original C code reimplementation that it used, but modified it quite
a bit and one of the items I added to it was the ability of the g
protocol to handle a bigger packet window and probably to handle bigger
packets. At the time I dialed it into UUNET once or twice a day for
email and some very small amount of Usenet news. This all would have
been in the 1992 - 1994 time frame. So, ya, the UUCP g protocol could
be fiddled with somewhat and it would likely work.
--
Brad Spencer - brad(a)anduin.eldar.org - KC8VKS
http://anduin.eldar.org - & - http://anduin.ipv6.eldar.org [IPv6 only]