Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>]

on Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 04:52:29PM -0500, Jim Ray wrote:
> so, if you're using a wireless connection and lose packets, you may 
> check the same POP mailbox again.  my observation is from personal 
> experience.

If you're using /any/ connection, and lose packets (n.b.: it'd need to
be a helluva lot of packets, for a relatively long time) you can
conceivably drop a POP session and if your POP server or mail client
sucks, or if you try to connect to the POP server again before the lock
times out, yes, it may cause a POP lock. So, um, it's not particularly
relevant that you've apparently experienced this using wireless. It's
certainly not sufficient reason to avoid wireless, or avoid POP over
wireless. Unless, of course, either or both of your POP server and/or
your mail client sucks. I've been using wireless (shared between two or
more laptops as well as bridged to ethernet to various Macs) for the
past five years or so and my biggest problem with it is my refrigerator,
washer and dryer. Never had to reset a POP lock as a result. YMMV.

> however, there are foot long Yagi antennae shooting cigar beams that 
> prevent interference.  with only 3 users on the other end of the 11 Mbps 
> link, their 10 user enterprise edition of QuickBooks Pro takes users on 
> that side significantly longer to open the company's files.
> 
> wired ethernet does not experience the same problem at 100 Mbps.

That's perfectly reasonable; after all, there's an order of magnitude
difference or so between their theoretical bandwidth ratings. :)

-- 
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
antispam news, solutions for sendmail, exim, postfix: http://enemieslist.com/