On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 12:24:14PM -0700, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
>
>On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 01:24:23AM -0800, Patrick R. Wade wrote:
>>[0] The UUCP function that is sorely missing is the ability to push
>>an arbitrary file to an arbitrary remote user. In practice people try
>
>That's not UUCP's job. Using the same logic, one could say that TCP/IP is
>antiquated because it doesn't provide that functionality. UUCP, like
>TCP/IP, is a transport.
Perhaps i should not have capitalized it :-)
I refer to the use of the uucp command more or less like this:
$ uucp -m -n yourusername myfile path!to!yourhost!~/yourusername
At least to hear O'Reilly tell it, this is a classic and normal use of UUCP.
I can't find anything like it in TCP/IP; one needs to compose an FTP script
or something like that to send a file non-interactively, unless one uses a
mail attachment.
>>Keeping UUCP running is starting to seem a lot like keeping a 130-year-old
>>man who smokes 4 packs a day on life support because he's the last person
>
>Wow... Everyone here at tummy.com is using UUCP as the last hop to their
>personal machine for e-mail. Other than adding/removing users, I don't
>think I've *EVER* had to muck with UUCP. It just works.
I guess YMMV. I've heard any number of UUCP-maintenance horror stories,
and O'Reilly asserts the cover beast on the UUCP books is a bear in reference
to the challenges of UUCP administration...
--
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER
BULLETIN BOARDS.
