PE> The latter hasn't been proven by a long shot. 

BG> That's your opinion Paul, but I know several BBS operators (running 
BG> Couriers) who would disagree with you.

The ones that haven't done adequate testing.

PE> Actually, neither has the first, Matthew has one, and gets problems 
PE> connecting to my M34F that no-one else gets. 

BG> Of course, it couldn't possibly be the NetComm at fault, could it?  :)

It could well be.  The M34F is a real-world modem.  Inability to
connect to it is a worry for the owner of both modems.

BG> It's true though that the days of everybody's 2400bps modems connecting 
BG> reliably appear to have gone.  However, given that the various protocol 

I couldn't connect to Paragon's 2400 bps modems reliably, or at
least I didn't get an MNP connection.  Not just from my home line
either.  AND I reported the problem to the sysop, and they said
that others had reported it too.

BG> specs are set in stone by the ITU-T, one would reasonably expect that all 
BG> modems should be able to connect with each other without problems, but this 
BG> is just not the case.  Unfortunately, no modem is 100% perfect these days.

ANY of the modems we have available, MAY be 100% conformant to the
spec though.  We have no way of knowing whether all the problems
for (e.g.) the USR are actually the other modem's fault.  However,
we can say that all of the modems have deficient code, as, even
if they are 100% conformant, they need to be more than that to make
up for other modem's inadequacies.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---