North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: E-mail vs. FTP -- ***RTF RFC***
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:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 7:57 AM > To: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]>, or you are likely to be blocked. > >
|