often overlooked is NNTP. It's an excellent way to move information around under exactly these circumstances: low bandwidth, lossy connections -- and intermittent connectivity, limited resources, etc.
I largely agree. Though NNTP does depend on system-to-system TCP/IP connectivity. I say system-to-system instead of end-to-end because there can be intermediate systems between the end systems. NNTP's store and forward networking quite capable.
Something that might make you groan even more than NNTP is UUCP. UUCP doesn't even have the system-to-system (real time) requirement that NNTP has. It's quite possible to copy UUCP "Bag" files to removable media and use sneaker net t transfer things. I've heard tell of people configuring UUCP on systems at the office, their notebook that they take with them, and systems at home. The notebook (push or poll) connects to the systems that it can currently communicate with and transfers files.
UUCP can also be used to transfer files, news (NNTP: public (Usenet) and / or private), email, and remote command execution.
Nearly any laptop/desktop has enough computing capacity to run an NNTP server
Agreed. I dare say that anything that has a TCP/IP stack is probably capable of running an NNTP server (and / or UUCP).
depending on the quantity of information being moved around, it's not at all out of the question to do exactly that, so that every laptop/desktop (and thus every person) has their own copy right there, thus enabling them to continue using it in the absence of any connectivity.
I hadn't considered having a per system NNTP server. I sort of like the idea. I think it could emulate the functionality that I used to get out of Lotus Notes & Domino with local database replication. I rarely needed the offline functionality, but having it was nice. I also found that the local database made searches a lot faster than waiting on them to traverse the network.
Also note that bi- or unidirectional NNTP/SMTP gateways are useful.
Not only that, but given the inherent one-to-many nature of NNTP, you can probably get away with transmitting that message once instead of (potentially) once per recipient. (Yes, I know that SMTP is supposed to optimize this, but I've seen times when it doesn't work, properly.)
It's not fancy, but anybody who demands fancy at a time like this is an idiot. It *works*, it gets the basics done, and thanks to decades of development/experience, it holds up well under duress.
I completely agree with your statement about NNTP. I do think that UUCP probably holds up even better. UUCP bag files make it easy to bridge communications across TCP/IP gaps. You could probably even get NNTP and / or UUCP to work across packet radio. }:-)
-- Grant. . . . unix || die
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature