@node Comparison
+@cindex comparison
+@cindex SMTP
+@cindex FTN
+@cindex FidoNet
+@cindex UUCP
@unnumbered Comparison with existing solutions
Here is comparison with @url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUCP, UUCP}
UUCP and NNCP does not known nothing about routing. You have to
explicitly tell how to send (what hops to use) packets to each node.
+@cindex PSTN
@item PSTN support
UUCP and FidoNet always have been working with modems out-of-box.
Only many years later they gained support for working over TCP/IP
TCP daemon, but nothing prohibits using of another 8-bit aware
online transport.
+@cindex anonymity
+@cindex Sybil attack
@item Anonymous peers
NNCP and FTN are friend-to-friend networks exclusively. This is very
secure and mitigates many possible man-in-the-middle (MitM) and
@url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack, Sybil} attacks.
+@cindex sneakernet
+@cindex floppynet
@item Sneakernet friendliness
No one, except NNCP, supports data exchanging via removable storages
likes flash drives, CD-ROMs, tapes and hard drives out-of-box. It
@end table
+@cindex UUCP commands
Also there is
@url{https://changelog.complete.org/archives/10165-asynchronous-email-exim-over-nncp-or-uucp, copy of}
comparable commands of UUCP and NNCP, just for the interest:
@multitable @columnfractions 0.5 0.25 0.25
@headitem Purpose @tab UUCP @tab NNCP
+@pindex uucico
+@pindex uupoll
+@pindex uux
+@pindex uucp
+@pindex uuxqt
@item Connect to remote system
@tab @command{uucico -s}, @command{uupoll}
@tab @command{nncp-call}, @command{nncp-caller}