mailing list archives
EMAIL != FTP
From: John Fraizer <nanog () Overkill EnterZone Net>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 04:18:24 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
From: Steve Sobol [mailto:sjsobol () NorthShoreTechnologies net]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 2:51 PM
Shawn McMahon wrote:
TCP rate-limiting on outbound traffic to *:25 would also
effective, particularly on unclassified customer traffic,
and without the
heavy-handed nature of denying all dial-up traffic.
interfere with low-volume legitimate mail, but it really
It interferes heavily with transmission of large files via
and this *IS* a valid use of service.
The transmission of large files is not a valid use of email.
Is too... I send large documents regularly, via email. I just sent a 125
page word doc, with about 20 embedded Visio drawings and a bunch of embedded
Excel spreadsheets. It was huge. Most of the recipients are on dialups with
Win98. How else do you expect me to get it to them ... FTP? Most of them are
NOT computer jocks.
How about this Roeland:
You send them an email that says:
Because email is NOT intended to be a file transfer protocol and beyond
that fact that I know you're on a low-bandwidth dialup account, please
find below a link to the document I said I would send to you. On a 56K
dialup connection, this will most likely take about 10 minutes for you to
download. There are two links. One will retrieve the document via FTP and
one will retrieve the document via HTTP. The HTTP link will most likely
provide a faster download under most circumstances. I provided both to
afford you the opportunity to choose when and how you retrieve the
Very simple concept. It not only uses the right tool for the job but,
also affords them the opportunity to retrieve the document when it is
CONVENIENT for them. If I were a dialup user and somone sent me some HUGE
attachment like that, I would consider it very rude.
Note to all salesdroids: If you want to be sure that I will NEVER do
business with you, send me an email attachment.