Re: A Livingston default modem string is bad for a USR modem
alexm@agetech.net
Sun, 11 Aug 1996 11:09:09 -0400
Joe Hartley wrote:
>
> > Yes, the &m5 *forces* the modem to obtain an error-correcting session, which
> > is foolish not to do in cases where you know that the modem at the other end
> > of the line is capable of error correction. If we merely did &f1 and not
> > &m5, the default is &m4 which unfortunately gives the modem permission to
> > establish non-error-correcting sessions.
>
> Unfortunately??? Most of the users of PortMasters such as ISPs have
> no control at all over what sort of modems are calling! Locking a
> modem to &m5 is a *bad* thing for them, because anyone trying to
> connect with an older modem would be denied access to the system.
>
> Modems such as the USRs are very flexible, and can adapt to whatever's
> calling. I want to take advantage of that feature, not disable it! I
> don't know how you can be so sure that you'll never get a modem calling
> in that isn't error correcting - I could never take that chance.
>
> ========================================================================
> Joe Hartley - jh@brainiac.com - brainiac services, inc
> PO Box 5069 : Greene, RI : 02827 - vox 401.539.9050 : fax 401.539.2070
> Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
Yeah, What if you lock to port to force error correction and one of my
2400 baud users try to get on withou having v.42 correction or anything,
would it let them on?