Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: E-mail vs. FTP -- ***RTF RFC***
From: owen () dixon delong sj ca us (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 07:18:21 -0700

I fight FUD almost every day.  The reason FUD succeeds is because
people who know better are too lazy to fight it.  Sure, it seems easier
at the time, but in the long run, it just makes all of our lives harder.

If you give a mouse a cookie, it will come back for a glass of milk.


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,

((( 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.



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 ]