On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:42:04 PST, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> SMTP is not a file transport protocol, and it will always be less
> efficient at transporting files than a protocol that is designed for
> that purpose. Not to say that some new protocol couldn't be designed
> that had the desirable addressing features of email, and the efficiency
> of FTP. But that would be a new protocol...
No, it would be an old protocol. See RFC1440, from July 1993.
Is there sufficient interest to create a working group to overhaul RFC1440
into something more usable in today's Internet?
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech
- Re: Email messages: How large is too large? Vernon Schryver
- RE: Email messages: How large is too large? greg . guldenschuh
- RE: Email messages: How large is too large? Michael Welzl
- Re: Email messages: How large is too large? size ... Jon Crowcroft
- Re: Email messages: How large is too large? J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: Email messages: How large is too large? Michael H. Warfield
- RE: Email messages: How large is too large? Danny Iacovou
- Re: Email messages: How large is too large? Stephen Sprunk
- Re: Email messages: How large is too large? Kent Crispin
- Re: Email messages: How large is too larg... Peter Deutsch
- Re: Email messages: How large is too larg... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: Email messages: How large is too ... John Stracke
- Re: Email messages: How large is... Richard Shockey
- Re: Email messages: How larg... Kent Crispin
- Re: Email messages: How larg... Peter Deutsch
- Re: Email messages: How larg... Dave Crocker
- Re: Email messages: How larg... Peter Deutsch
- Re: Email messages: How larg... Dave Crocker
- Re: Email messages: How larg... Richard Shockey
- Re: Email messages: How larg... Peter Deutsch
- The Difficulty with Patents ... Richard Shockey
PGP signature