Richard Town wrote the following to Arthur Marsh, and I quote (in part):

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

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

No, it was correction of your erroneous statement that there is only one
Class2 implementation.

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

Just hold on Richard, you'll eat crow again.

 RT> If so, could you enlighten Edward Hobson (moderator of UK_HST in 
 RT> UK) by explaining that it's wrong to not impliment V42bis when V42 
 RT> fall-back action occurs?

 RT> I seem to have lost my communication skills over this!

There is nothing wrong about it.

Regards....

Craig
aka: cford{at}ix.netcom.com

--- timEd/2 1.10+