Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: E-mail vs. FTP -- ***RTF RFC***
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 09:24:47 -0700


One of my clients, a largish dot-com, tried this ... resounding lack of
success. The end-user community did NOT like it when an email arrived with
links. They were too afraid that the link might point to a virus, among
other things (yeah, I know, but YOU try fighting FUD for a while).

-----Original Message-----
From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:eddy+public+spam () noc everquick net]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 7:57 AM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: E-mail vs. FTP -- ***RTF RFC***



Greetings all,

Section 7.3.3 of RFC1341 addresses the external storage, 
expiry, et cetera
issues.  Not perfect, but a good first pass... and almost ten 
years old,
too.

((( Thanks to Valdis for pointing this out! )))

We could probably kludge FTP as an interim measure:

* MTA intercepts attachments, and spools them separately.

* "access-type: ftp" with, e.g., username "msg12345recipient67890" and
  password "mi93et490" and "expiration: Mon, 28 May 2001 
00:00:00 +0000".
  The specific parameters would be generated on a per-message basis.

* Mail admins can enforce quotas.  Nothing new.  The 
arguments in favor of
  electronic transfer are on the grounds of timely communication.  One
  could argue that somebody not checking mail for a week 
doesn't deserve
  to receive their attachment without a second 
"transmission".  The proxy
  MTA could insert a human-readable expiration notice or 
whatever other
  user-friendly prompting is deemed to be a good idea.

* We could also forget the MIME method, and put in a 
human-readable link
  to get the attachment, a la electronic greeting cards.  
This would allow
  immediate use of non-registered access-type methods.

Eventually, I'd like to see this done via HTTP/1.1 using chunked
transfers.  However, no current MUAs will support a non-existant HTTP
method or any X-Experimental methods.  For something that would work
*right now*, I think that RTF RFC and going from there is the 
right way...

Does anybody know what MUAs follow the RFC for external 
message content?
A little smtpd and ftpd hacking could yield something workable PDQ.


Eddy

--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------

Brotsman & Dreger, Inc.
EverQuick Internet Division

Phone: (316) 794-8922

--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist () brics com>
To: blacklist () brics com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting 
spambots.  Do NOT
send mail to <blacklist () brics com>, or you are likely to be blocked.




  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]