In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt
.edu typed:
>>--==_Exmh_-374731876P
>>a) Do you have an incoming anonymous FTP drop *of your own*?
>>b) Are you willing to set up incoming FTP for one file?
>>c) What if you're one of the millions of people who use an ISP that
>>doesn'
> ] From: "Martin Djernaes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ] I know that the internet were not build for "general use", but it is the
> ] life of the net today, at it should be the goal for the people
> ] implementing it (us?). Let us get away from the idea that it should
> ] always be used the way we i
Email Need not necessarily be for text and small attachments.
What if the other end does not have an ip for Filetransfer or etc
THEN I THINK we can send large documents through e-mail . Infact file
transfer is possible if both sides we have an ftp. or ip running.
Because i have only an email
At 16:02 13.12.99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 03:38:44PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > I don't think this is a problem for the routing system.
> >
> > indeed, you seem to be pushing a lot of routing decisions to the host. and
> > i am worried about where in the host's sta
Title: So transparent I can't even SEE it...
I was poking around looking for Brian's transparency draft, and noticed that it doesn't come up on the I-D Keyword search for either "Carpenter" or "Transparency".
I found it by doing a text search on the Individual Submissions page, but - shouldn'
g'day,
Vernon Schryver wrote:
. . .
> There is no magic. Users have been demanding the impossible from SMTP
> on the grounds that they don't understand why not for decades.
With all due respect, we're not the law-givers, come down from on high
with the tablets. We're the hired help. Telling
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 12:28:46PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 16:02 13.12.99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 03:38:44PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > > I don't think this is a problem for the routing system.
> > >
> > > indeed, you seem to be pushing a lot of
Title: RE: Email messages: How large is too large?
Brian - is this observation too detailed to include in the Transparency draft?
I'm thinking that at least some part of the loss-of-transparency issues might get more attention from the nice people who want to put application gateways between
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Unfortunately, for most of the Internet users of today, the availability
> of long-term stable externally-reachable storage is low enough that you
> usually end up dereferencing a null pointer.
It doesn't have to be that way. We'll set up an anonymous FTP site
for
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Sp
encer Dawkins" writes:
> I'm thinking that at least some part of the loss-of-transparency issues
> might get more attention from the nice people who want to put application
> gateways between themselves and the rest of the world if you point out that
> this has
Vernon Schryver wrote:
> There is no magic. Users have been demanding the impossible from SMTP
> on the grounds that they don't understand why not for decades. The same
> people who wouldn't try to load 10 ton of gravel in the back of their
> light duty pickup truck expect email to be 99.%
Title: RE: Email messages: How large is too large?
Steve,
You said this better than I could have - loss of transparency is making it harder for application designers to make correct use of the Internet easier for users, and it wasn't THAT easy to make correct use easy in the FIRST place...
> There are scaling problems. Consider how many disk drives an
> ISP would
> need to dedicate to mail directories to support many users
> moving 28 MByte
> messages. A 32 GByte drive can hold only about 1000 such messages.
> Consider an ISP with 1,000,000 customers. Remember the bad old days
I have always noticed a half day or so time lag between when I get an
announcement and when I can find the document using the search engine but the
document is always there if you type in the expected URL by hand. I noticed
the same problem with Brian's draft but I also noticed the problem on a
It could be argued that the 'correct' solution to large mail messages is for
the 'system' (mail exchanger) to handle all messages the same from the user
perspective but to sort the messages based on size and transfer then over
more than one smtp session. Traffic filters/routing policies could th
*>
*> It's actually worse than that. Instead of demanding a way to move large
*> files, they demand a way to move large email messages, and they cannot
*> understand the distinction.
*>
Vernon,
As I recall, the reason that Mime was developed was precisely to allow
email to substitut
Brain,
Looks like we have a teminology issue. Notice I did not say routing
system but ROUTING will have problem. Because the choice of a
multi-addressed host to use one of its IP address to include in
packet header implies routing decision, the host, in effect, does
some routing decision maki
> From: "Martin Djernaes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> > There is no magic. Users have been demanding the impossible from SMTP
> > on the grounds that they don't understand why not for decades. ...
> As long as the fact is that it takes 15 seconds in average and the
> reliability is 99 or more
At 06:19 14.12.99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >
> > >Application layer.
> > Not in my 5-line client, it's not.
> > Source/destination address choice inside whois? inside finger? NO.
>
>That was a flip remark for entertainment purposes, and it begs the question
>of what you mean, precisely, by
I think it is a good idea because companies are using the whois info as a
mailing database for there products. I get a ton of snail mail from this
MJE
Martin Essenburg
MCI WorldCom - Global Accounts East
727-431-5907
Vnet: 977-5907
Pager: 1-888-270-9268 (2way)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sts
At 02:07 PM 12/14/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Brain,
>
>Looks like we have a teminology issue. Notice I did not say routing
>system but ROUTING will have problem. Because the choice of a
>multi-addressed host to use one of its IP address to include in
>packet header implies routing decision, the host
> As I recall, the reason that Mime was developed was precisely to allow
> email to substitute for many file transfers. Before Mime, it was
> always a bit of an annoyance/embarassment that email could not be used
> in place of FTP for binary files.
Actually, the motivation for developing MIME wa
Christian Huitema wrote:
> The first SYN packet gets lost, and
> the client simply picks another address in the list and tries again.
The APIs I've used don't tell me about lost SYN packets (thank goodness); they
only tell me if the connection has timed out.
> So, yes, we have a problem. We nee
At 01:11 PM 12/14/1999 , Ned Freed wrote:
> > But I guess we forgot to take the next big step, redesigning email to
> > properly scale to handling arbitrarily large messages in a relatively
> > graceful manner when necessary.
>
>I remain to be convinced that problems handling large messages have
>
At 04:29 PM 12/14/99 -0500, John Stracke wrote:
>> it only makes a difference if a
>> connection to a transit provider breaks,
>
>Or if the chosen path becomes congested over time.
No. This is no different from the present situation. BGP does not recompute
routes in case of congestion. It is a p
>From Dave Crocker:
>
>
> In fact ESMTP is getting quite good at supporting large file
> transfers:
>
< Items Snipped >
>
> Since it is a highly asynchronous channel, with potentially very high
> latencies, email is a bit of a challenge for dealing with
> arbitrary message
> sizes. Th
I remain to be convinced that problems handling large messages have
much if anything to do with the modern ESMTP protocol. It seems to me
that it has a lot more to do with implementation and deployment.
Amen!
A few observations:
Many places depend on mailers which operate as 'parallel
Martin,
don't expect things to get better about UCE, your registration information
is now available for sale. all registrars are required to sell their whois
databases for a maximum of $10K, per the latest ICANN/DOC/NSI agreements.
-rick
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Martin Essenburg wrote:
> I think
At 02:50 PM 12/14/1999 , Christian Huitema wrote:
>No. This is no different from the present situation. BGP does not recompute
>routes in case of congestion. It is a problem that we are stuck with today,
>that multi-address multi-homing actually gives us the hope of solving.
Only minimally, as l
Could any body tell me where i can find a tutorial/specification for NHRP (
Next Hop Resolution Protocol). How does it work ? Any idea ??
Thanks
Prabhu
> Could any body tell me where i can find a tutorial/specification for NHRP
that is RFC 2332 - you can get the RFC through the IETF web page at
www.ietf.org
Scott
dear folks
Could anyone inform me on details - technical specifications and etc on WAP ?
Mano
Manohar Menon
System Engineer
FNPP - DECS
Subang Hitech
Tel : 580 1697
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fax : 580 2003
>>> Prabhu Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/15 10:17 AM >>>
Could any body tell me
Hi,
Is CDP (Cisco Discovery Protocol) an IETF draft or RFC?
Any other information on discovery protocols or pointers
would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
-James
> At 02:50 PM 12/14/1999 , Christian Huitema wrote:
> >No. This is no different from the present situation. BGP does not recompute
> >routes in case of congestion. It is a problem that we are stuck with today,
> >that multi-address multi-homing actually gives us the hope of solving.
>
>
> Only m
WAP is not an IETF activity - it is from the WAP Forum
http://www.wapforum.org/
http://www.wapforum.com/what/spec1.htm
Hope this Helps
Roger
-Original Message-
From: Manohar Menon [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 9:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:WAP
dear folks
Could anyone inform me on details -
unsuscribe
Do You Yahoo!?Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.Yahoo! Shopping.
CDP is a Proprietary protocol , you way also want to look at the RFC 2701
Roger
-Original Message-
From: James F Dougherty [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 8:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:CDP
Hi,
Is CDP (Cisco Discovery Protocol) an IETF
38 matches
Mail list logo
