home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
- Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!sgi!rhyolite!vjs
- From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
- Subject: Re: Boom! Our lawyers are tougher than your lawyers. You're Dead.
- Message-ID: <nktpnuk@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com>
- Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc. Mountain View, CA
- References: <1992Jul17.035105.6535@ddsw1.mcs.com> <BrsyEw.Dst@wsrcc.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:30:54 GMT
- Lines: 32
-
- In article <BrsyEw.Dst@wsrcc.com>, wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) writes:
- >
- > This has nothing to do with "good modem manufacturers". Anyone
- > relying on "<pause>+++<pause>" not occurring during a data transfer is
- > not writing good defensive code. Good programmers don't *hope* that a
- > certain set of characters and delays never happens. They turn off the
- > inband +++ escape kludge and use a good *out-of-band* escape.
-
-
- YES!
- That bears repeating.
-
-
- When two computers are talking, why should "<delay>+++<delay>" be
- usefully less likely than any other sequence of 3+2*<delay> bytes or
- byte-times?
-
-
- You usually don't see pauses at random places in the middle of file
- transfers. You usually see them at "record boundaries". However,
- "usually" is a pretty sloppy way to design something.
-
-
- The "<delay>+++<delay>" thing seemed wrong to me for UUCP links when I
- first saw it years ago, when I started turning it off on all machines I
- could affect. I have just now realized that I had forgotten that I'd
- tired of arguing from that position with people who don't care about
- the differences among "usually", "never", or any other probability, and
- have used the security argument.
-
-
- Vernon Schryver, vjs@sgi.com
-