3 ms·
I will always have a fondness for UUCP. I eventually moved to qmail (a bit hacked up to handle for some unusual requirements) for all the UUCP related stuff. U
by mkovach 4y ago
I will always have a fondness for UUCP. I eventually moved to qmail (a bit hacked up to handle for some unusual requirements) for all the UUCP related stuff.
UUCP had it's issues, but it was (and still is) one of the best was to transfer stuff over really bad connections. We worked at a place where we had really remote locations and UUCP stuff worked without much work.
Plus, I learned a ton in writing something to do reports and monitoring of the UUCP connections. Fun times, but I am still scarred Sendmail. Some wounds are pretty deep.
- linsomniac 4y agoBack circa 1994, I was getting e-mail by dialing in to the Boulder Internet Coop via UUCP. They were really experienced Unix folks (Trent Hein, Evi Nemeth RIP), running Sun. At one point, the uucp queue got big enough (I believe from machines that were connecting infrequently or maybe not at all), that the directory holding all those files couldn't be scanned in less than the UUCP timeout. All the while I was paying long distance rates (remember those) to sit on the line idling. I had recommended they switch to using Taylor UUCP, because it splits the queue directory up into a hierarchy. They said Taylor wasn't mature enough, but I asked Ian Lance Taylor about it and he laughed and said "<THE major commercial UUCP provider> doesn't seem to agree." :-) I've always heard that Kermit has really great protocols for handling horribly, horribly bad modem connections. I had at times wondered if a kermit UUCP protocol would have been useful.
- mkovach 4y agoKermit could be pretty good. Used it for VMS stuff for quite a bit. Really lost track of it when I moved to mainly Unix setups.