Update - trying to get HFC to work at 19200

[Marc Weinstein]

>From article <100233 at becker.UUCP>, by bdb at becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker):
> In article <52686 at rphroy.UUCP> rhaar at gmr.com writes:
> |In article <1991May7.204341.15825 at oswego.oswego.edu>, ostroff at Oswego.EDU
> |(Boyd Ostroff) writes:
> ||> In article <GUEST.91May6143614 at geech.ai.mit.edu>
> |guest at geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) writes:
> ||> >In article <1991May6.021315.25208 at fithp> mhw at fithp (Marc Weinstein) writes:
> ||> >   something whicici
> ||> >   buffer.  Rave revi f f vo208 (t (t ine ine ipesT
> ||> 
> ||> I think it says "this is a sample of how well the 3B1 serial ports
> ||> work at 19200 baud with hardware flow control."  :-)
> |
> |To me, it looks like the original author was confusing the backspace
> |character with the rubout.
>
> 	The type of junk you're seeing is most
> 	likely the result of a damaged compressed
> 	file.

Nice tries, all, but the winner is...None of the above!!!

I do apologize for confusing the neters and getting people's hopes *down*!

I discovered that my posting looked fine on my machine, AND fine on my
news neighbor's machine.  We talk via 9600 baud V.42bis.  However, it was
garbled on the next machine down, which we talk to at 2400 baud MNP!!  We
discovered that this machine, a Sun Sparcstation (with plenty of disk)
didn't have Hardware Flow Control working on incoming calls.  Outgoing 
calls were fine, apparently.  We've since fixed the problem.

My guess is the lack of HFC garbled the article, but not badly enough for
the unbatcher to get confused.

-- 
Marc Weinstein
{simon,royko,tellab5}!linac!fithp!mhw		Elmhurst, IL
-or- {internet host}!linac.fnal.gov!fithp!mhw