From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Oct 10 14:18:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA10409 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:18:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from usr08.primenet.com (tlambert@usr08.primenet.com [206.165.6.208]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA10402 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:18:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA12575; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:18:15 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199710102118.OAA12575@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: UUCP (important clarification) To: bradley@dunn.org (Bradley Dunn) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:18:15 +0000 (GMT) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Bradley Dunn" at Oct 10, 97 02:57:35 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I work for an ISP and we make a decent amount of money selling UUCP to > small businesses. It works a whole lot better than the 'ETRN' SMTP > hackery. Er, what exactly don't you like about ETRN? I admit that "TURN" was definitely hackery (and Post.Office's XREMOTEQUEUE), but ETRN seems to me to be the way to go. It beats the finger-based triggerring hack all to heck... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.