Re: Recipient is offline

John C Klensin wrote:
> > I don't know why I didn't think of it before, but UUCP is
> > still available as an option, at least for FreeBSD, and
> > probably works just fine.  Expect funny looks when you tell
> > people you're using it, though...
> So, to save Hector or others from writing a note, is Fidonet in
> parts of the world where it is still useful.  
Cheap shot. I was all prepared to not further add to the obvious. But 
if that is a question you have above:
Yes, in small numbers, and surprising that it is to us, we still have 
people buying:
   http://www.santronics.com/products/pxpress

Its no longer developed, we do as little support as needed and 
encourage user-support to help themselves.  The difference John, is 
the addition of the internet layer.  So dialup is a backup, not the 
main frontend. So instead of seeing a telephone # in the Fidonet 
Nodelist, you have an IP address.
Its a reflection of the economy and people reestablishing their own 
little BBS, business and services A.K.A Mom and Pop, Small Businesses.
Yet, I got the IBM's with Dialup Store and Forward setups in 
California, Texas and I need to make a tech call very shortly.
Why Dialup?

#1, its one way to win a fast entry contract with the feds as the 
exception to HIPAA secured internet transfer requirements.
#2, you can't force people (even BIG companies) to change and invest 
money on things they don't need and can get the job done more cheaply 
in old traditional ways.
#3, you can save money, like high bandwidth internet cost, but 
switching to dialup on certain applications. i.e. $30K to $3K per 
month as one example.

--
Sincerely

Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com