-=> Quoting Arthur Marsh to Richard Town <=-

 AM> George Pajari of Faximum Software has claimed that EIA Standards
 AM> Proposal 2388 differs from the Rockwell Class 2 implementation in a few
 AM> ways.

I don't believe 2388 defined BFT.  But the original thread was
deliberately peverted by the "more mouth than trousers brigade" in here
that attempted to re-broadcast disinformation that one particular
Class2 may not connect or successfully complete fax operations with another
because of differences in the implimentation

Perhaps they'd be better employed enquiring why USR has been practicing
modem apartheid, over the past 18 months at least, by refusing to negotiate
the 3429 symbol rate with Rockwell-oids :)

Thanx for your reply Arthur.  Erm, am I right in saying that you had
something to do with the discussions on V42bis ratification by CCITT in
1990?  If so, could you enlighten Edward Hobson (moderator of UK_HST in UK)
by explaining that it's wrong to not impliment V42bis when V42 fall-back
action occurs?

I seem to have lost my communication skills over this!

rgdZ
Richard

--- FMail/386 1.02