Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Hello, Lex Chive: On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 06:28:37PM +0200, Sami Dalouche wrote: It's one thing to send Christmas gifs to people that are a couple of hundred bytes long; it's quite a different story when it's a huge, uncompressed bitmap which does exactly the same job. Sadly, in most e-mail clients either would be just a filename, with no immediate indication of how big it really is. If u insist to have a such function, maybe Mutt can do that... Mutt is not (should not) be concerned with fetching mail. From the doc: I think something was lost somewhere along the way... My paragraph above was talking about MUAs (especially under Windows) that let the user attach huge files without so much as showing the size, much less warning if it's bigger than 50K. 50K is the rule of thumb suggested by RFC 1855. Jiri -- Jiri Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] We'll know the future has arrived when every mailer transparently quotes lines that begin with From , but no-one remembers why.
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
And don't reply with: Have you tried mutt? I have. I do not like mutt or elm Hmm. What's the problem w/ mutt ? If it's too awful, it could be great to develop a Gnome or GTK interface to it. Is it possible - if a developper could answer - ? Have you tried Kmail, The KDE mail software ? I know, it's for KDE, it's also contrib... but it's largely freeer than Outlook Express ! or any ncursed software (cept for mc!). Im too old for that.. ;) And I'm too young to lose my time pointing clicking AndX Chat is a great application. I miss a channel favortie/quick join. That's about it. No need to miss Windows there! :) --- Regards, Christian Dysthe Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigfoot.com/~cdysthe ICQ 3945810 Powered by Debian GNU/Linux --- Clones are people two -- |. ICQ : 25529539 || |\ | | | \ / AIM : linhax |___ | | \| |__| / \ IRC nick : linhax Sami Dalouche : [EMAIL PROTECTED]DHIS : pingoo.dhis.org
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 09:01:10PM +, Nathan Valentine wrote: Sami Dalouche wrote: On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 12:37:09PM +0100, BENJAMIN FARRELL wrote: Heres a good point about linux, anyone found a good irc client for x (other than Bitchx in a E-Term :) that doesn't crash everytime you click (yagirc Yes ! There's Bitchx in an X-Term :-) xchat is really nice but if you have/want to stay at the console I'd recommend EPIC with the splitfire script. What's the splitfire script ? And why do you recommend EPIC instead of Bitchx ? What's better w/ EPIC ? -- Nathan Valentine - [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: NRVesKY - University of Kentucky Linux Users Group http://www.uky.edu/StudentOrgs/UKLUG -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- |. ICQ : 25529539 || |\ | | | \ / AIM : linhax |___ | | \| |__| / \ IRC nick : linhax Sami Dalouche : [EMAIL PROTECTED]DHIS : pingoo.dhis.org
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 06:33:14PM +1000, Jiri Baum wrote: Hello, Sami Dalouche: The operative word being `need to'. It'd be a very good feature indeed if the e-mail client checked the size of the message and said, when appropriate, something along the lines of this is an unusually large message by Internet standards; are you sure? (y/N) and popped up a wizard for other ways of transferring the file. Hey ! Writing such a software for Windows os OK and usual but do not begin to do this under Linux ! Actually, I think I *was* talking about Windows, but why not Linux? (OK, apart from the pop-up-wizard bit...) Every mailer I've seen has a send/abort/headers/whatever screen just before the message goes off. In elm, most of the screen is blank for that! It'd be just as easy to use that part of screen for netiquette warnings. Ah ! You just want that the software tells you what's the size of your message w/o a popup ? Mutt does this well. see : = Attachments = 1 /tmp/mutt-pingoo-16220-0 [text/plain, 7bit, 19K] 2 =inbox [text/plain,8bit, 507K] This is a part of his last screen. What's the matter with Mutt ? He doesn't add all the size to give a global size ? Maybe it's configurable. (I think tin - the newsreader - does that for postings. After you compose a post, when it's asking you whether you want to post/quit/edit/pgp, it often shows a message saying your post exceeds 78 columns; people may have trouble with that; the first line to exceed 78 columns is: `...' or something on those lines.) It's one thing to send Christmas gifs to people that are a couple of hundred bytes long; it's quite a different story when it's a huge, uncompressed bitmap which does exactly the same job. Sadly, in most e-mail clients either would be just a filename, with no immediate indication of how big it really is. If u insist to have a such function, maybe Mutt can do that... That's where it belongs, isn't it? (Well, maybe there should be a standalone version of that program, too - you'd give it a prepared message and it'd give back any warnings, with exit code 0 for OK, 1 for minor faux pas, etc.) Jiri -- Jiri Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] We'll know the future has arrived when every mailer transparently quotes lines that begin with From , but no-one remembers why. -- |. ICQ : 25529539 || |\ | | | \ / AIM : linhax |___ | | \| |__| / \ IRC nick : linhax Sami Dalouche : [EMAIL PROTECTED]DHIS : pingoo.dhis.org
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 11:43:27PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote: Sorry, but OE doesn't deserve to be called a email client. You can't quote quoted-printable encoded mails, you are placed on top on a reply (thous encouraging the newbie to answer above the text and leave a full quote below), the signature is placed above the quoted text, you Placing the cursor at the top of the message is the right thing to do - you're only going to have to go back up deleting text otherwise. There is the potential to do the wrong thing even when the cursor is placed at the end of the text and simply write a reply, not deleting anything. Neither is very good. I have yet to see a program on any operating system that comes close to the power of gnus. Which also starts you off at the top. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgpNKScoFoLMk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
Mark == Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have yet to see a program on any operating system that comes close to the power of gnus. Mark Which also starts you off at the top. Not if you don't want this. It is a changeable, as everything else. The problem is not the cursor at the top (I like to go down and replay to sentences and delete unneded parts and proceed), but that OE also places the signature at the top, which makes the beginner believe he should place his answer between the top and the signature followed by the original mail. Ciao, Martin
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 12:25:54AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 11:43:27PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote: Sorry, but OE doesn't deserve to be called a email client. You can't quote quoted-printable encoded mails, you are placed on top on a reply (thous encouraging the newbie to answer above the text and leave a full quote below), the signature is placed above the quoted text, you Placing the cursor at the top of the message is the right thing to do - you're only going to have to go back up deleting text otherwise. Yes, but OE inserts a blank line at the top of the message, and places only `-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --' as the quote line. Then, to compound things further, it puts your signature *above* the quoted message. Theee is the potential to do the wrong thing even when the cursor is placed at the end of the text and simply write a reply, not deleting anything. Neither is very good. At least the reply would be in the correct place. Anyway, where the editor's cursor is initially placed is indeed irrelevant - if the user has too little Clue to correctly compose and format an email or news message, they are unlikely to be able to communicate anything useful. I have yet to see a program on any operating system that comes close to the power of gnus. Which also starts you off at the top. I wouldn't know, I'm perfectly happy with mutt and vim (which also starts off at the top). -- alisdair mcdiarmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [your home may be at risk if you do not keep up repayments on your loan. any and all advice given is strictly confidential]
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 02:35:54AM +0100, Alisdair McDiarmid wrote: On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 12:25:54AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 11:43:27PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote: Sorry, but OE doesn't deserve to be called a email client. You Placing the cursor at the top of the message is the right thing to do - you're only going to have to go back up deleting text otherwise. Yes, but OE inserts a blank line at the top of the message, and places only `-- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --' as the quote line. Then, to compound things further, it puts your signature *above* the quoted message. Oh, indeed - the signature placement is just plain wrong, and the quote line is bad too (although not insurmontable, and more informative than some). It just seems silly to pull it up for faults that don't exist (and this cursor placment seems to be the favourite) when there are so many real ones to complain about. Which also starts you off at the top. I wouldn't know, I'm perfectly happy with mutt and vim (which also starts off at the top). How can you live without the wellspring of informed and reasoned discussion that is Usenet?! -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgpVIakWeJuFW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 02:49:57AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: Oh, indeed - the signature placement is just plain wrong, I'm pretty sure it encourages no .sig delimiters too - you have to insert your own, and even then it strips the trailing space. and the quote line is bad too (although not insurmontable, and more informative than some). *boggle* It just seems silly to pull it up for faults that don't exist (and this cursor placment seems to be the favourite) when there are so many real ones to complain about. The only problem I had with OU4 was instability. OU5 was still more unstable, and forced me to work out how to configure exim, mutt and vim (for which I'm grateful :-). Which also starts you off at the top. I wouldn't know, I'm perfectly happy with mutt and vim (which also starts off at the top). How can you live without the wellspring of informed and reasoned discussion that is Usenet?! I sort of gave up Usenet when I got a Real Life. Sad, but I've just not got any time to read flame wars on comp.sys.acorn.* anymore. I do have slrn installed and ready just in case my girlfriend dumps me, though ;-) -- alisdair mcdiarmid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [your home may be at risk if you do not keep up repayments on your loan. any and all advice given is strictly confidential]
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Hello, Sami Dalouche: The operative word being `need to'. It'd be a very good feature indeed if the e-mail client checked the size of the message and said, when appropriate, something along the lines of this is an unusually large message by Internet standards; are you sure? (y/N) and popped up a wizard for other ways of transferring the file. Hey ! Writing such a software for Windows os OK and usual but do not begin to do this under Linux ! Actually, I think I *was* talking about Windows, but why not Linux? (OK, apart from the pop-up-wizard bit...) Every mailer I've seen has a send/abort/headers/whatever screen just before the message goes off. In elm, most of the screen is blank for that! It'd be just as easy to use that part of screen for netiquette warnings. (I think tin - the newsreader - does that for postings. After you compose a post, when it's asking you whether you want to post/quit/edit/pgp, it often shows a message saying your post exceeds 78 columns; people may have trouble with that; the first line to exceed 78 columns is: `...' or something on those lines.) It's one thing to send Christmas gifs to people that are a couple of hundred bytes long; it's quite a different story when it's a huge, uncompressed bitmap which does exactly the same job. Sadly, in most e-mail clients either would be just a filename, with no immediate indication of how big it really is. If u insist to have a such function, maybe Mutt can do that... That's where it belongs, isn't it? (Well, maybe there should be a standalone version of that program, too - you'd give it a prepared message and it'd give back any warnings, with exit code 0 for OK, 1 for minor faux pas, etc.) Jiri -- Jiri Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] We'll know the future has arrived when every mailer transparently quotes lines that begin with From , but no-one remembers why.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 06:28:37PM +0200, Sami Dalouche wrote: It's one thing to send Christmas gifs to people that are a couple of hundred bytes long; it's quite a different story when it's a huge, uncompressed bitmap which does exactly the same job. Sadly, in most e-mail clients either would be just a filename, with no immediate indication of how big it really is. If u insist to have a such function, maybe Mutt can do that... Mutt is not (should not) be concerned with fetching mail. From the doc: Note: The POP3 support is there only for convenience, and it's rather limited. If you need more functionality you should consider using a specialized program, such as fetchmail. If you are using an external (eg ISP) pop account then you should probably be using fetchmail which has an option to limit the size of message. If you are receiving your messages directly and are concerned with hd space you can junk them with procmail (or exim filters :P). Thats why unix is better imho than other os like win: there is not one big app but many small apps which are working together. This makes it much more customizeables, and also easier to upgrade. Some people like the win philosophy of having one do-it-all program, this is a matter of taste. True, those will maybe regret OE... -Lex pgphHqP6lv1JT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
To a certain extent I have to agree, but where I REALLY think Linux lags behind is email. I miss an email client coming close to for instance Outlook Express and The Bat! for Windows (or even Eudora!). The only one is XFmail which currently is not being developed it seems. The Outlook family are generally considered broken even by ardent Microsoft fans. They ride rough shod over standards and convention, make it difficult to quote sesnibly, don't seem to do blind copies, and will send HTML, MS-TNEF and GIF images of the paper almost without warning. If you want a free Windows mail program, use Pegasus, preferably one of the older ones, as it has gone down hill with the introduction of rich text, which is about as broken as Outlook's. Unfortunately Pegasus is not available in source code and Eudora Lite is a teaser for a commercial product.
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
I use the Netscape Mail program and am quite happy with it. I've recently returned to Netscape Mail from Pegasus, which is nice, but has a few little annoying things that Netscape doesn't: New messages appear in the New Mail folder. Once they move from there (after reading) they can't be put back, even if you mark messages as unread. If you search for messages by criteria you get a list of matches. If you select one of them, it opens it (okay so far), but then when you finish the message and close it, you find that Pegasus has opened the folder it came from underneath. This leads to an annoying repetition of click on msg, read msg, close msg, close folder window. It also doesn't have Netscape's ease of searching on multiple fields. You can do it, but you have to parse together a command-line like search term rather than just clicking on add another search term like Netscape. It had a feature to autowrap quoting which I found nice - until I found it was unreliable in general, *never* worked for multi-level quoting and tended to auto-italicize (if you have that turned on) the wrong bits of the message. Sometimes text around the autowrapped area even disappeared! Like I say, generally little things, but annoying. Regardless of what you may think of the Netscape Browser, the Mail program is really a fairly nice piece of work... David Woolley wrote: To a certain extent I have to agree, but where I REALLY think Linux lags behind is email. I miss an email client coming close to for instance Outlook Express and The Bat! for Windows (or even Eudora!). The only one is XFmail which currently is not being developed it seems. The Outlook family are generally considered broken even by ardent Microsoft fans. They ride rough shod over standards and convention, make it difficult to quote sesnibly, don't seem to do blind copies, and will send HTML, MS-TNEF and GIF images of the paper almost without warning. If you want a free Windows mail program, use Pegasus, preferably one of the older ones, as it has gone down hill with the introduction of rich text, which is about as broken as Outlook's. Unfortunately Pegasus is not available in source code and Eudora Lite is a teaser for a commercial product. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- -- Revenant [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- The whole principle is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak. - author Robert A. Heinlein on censorship.
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 12:37:09PM +0100, BENJAMIN FARRELL wrote: Heres a good point about linux, anyone found a good irc client for x (other than Bitchx in a E-Term :) that doesn't crash everytime you click (yagirc Yes ! There's Bitchx in an X-Term :-) Seriously, I think xchat or xchat-gnome is great. It hasn't a lot of functions like bitchx but is easy and it hasn't crashed on my machine. But does any1 know how to open automaticly new windows - or something similar - when we are /msg'ed ? It's the only function for which I prefer an X program to do IRC. anyone). I still find for everyday use Win95/NT is better (quaking, ircing, - Quaking : OK - ircing : I don't know. Try xchat and xchat-gnome and tell me if it's better than mirc. - browsing : Windows is largely superior for this. - ftping : If u want a point click app : try Iglooftp or gftp. browsing, ftping). It seems that linux has quite a good range of applications, just a case of find one, and one that works fine. // Ben Farrell (BigBadBen) -Original Message- From: Jerry Lynn Kreps [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; suse-linux-e@suse.com suse-linux-e@suse.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-user@lists.debian.org debian-user@lists.debian.org Date: 28 March 1999 21:23 Subject: Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ??? mmm I must be delusional. I haven't booted my Win95 side in months (When SuSE 6.1 with the 2.2.x kernel comes out I will reclaim that space for Linux) so how am I keeping my checkbook balanced and reconciled? Must be a phantom copy of cbb. I do my symbolic math with MuPAD 3.4 instead of MathCad 7.0 but I must be dilusional there also. My scanner scans perfectly well using Sane-1.0, which is called out of GIMP-1.0 and my other graphics programs, to say nothing of Blender-1.37 and Varkon, but I must be imagining things. I think I'm enjoying air combat simulation with ACM 5.0, which is much better than M$ Flight Sim. I'm not into music but I do know there are some fantasic sound and sound analysis programs. To sum up, has this guy done any serious searching? JLK (Ted Harding) wrote: Apologies for duplicate postings, but I'd like to make sure I sound a diverse population. Today' London Sunday Times feature Innovation (pp 10-11 of News Review, http://www.sunday-times.co.uk ) has an article by David Hewson (of Linux, the Program from Hell fame) entitled Linux wins backing of computing giants. His attitude to Linux is much more moderate than it was: the article is basically balanced and fair, including some sound negative comment. However, he states: ... Comments, info, contributions, anyone? Best wishes to all, Ted. E-Mail: (Ted Harding) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 28-Mar-99 Time: 12:49:27 -- XFMail -- -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- |. ICQ : 25529539 || |\ | | | \ / AIM : linhax |___ | | \| |__| / \ IRC nick : linhax Sami Dalouche : [EMAIL PROTECTED]DHIS : pingoo.dhis.org
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
The operative word being `need to'. It'd be a very good feature indeed if the e-mail client checked the size of the message and said, when appropriate, something along the lines of this is an unusually large message by Internet standards; are you sure? (y/N) and popped up a wizard for other ways of transferring the file. Hey ! Writing such a software for Windows os OK and usual but do not begin to do this under Linux ! All the Gnome Apps begin to ask are u sure ? and Would u like to save you GnomeICU connecion log to .. It's normal for Gnome because it's to make sure the new Linux users coming from Windows are OK, but the console shouldn't begin to ask these stupid question... It's one thing to send Christmas gifs to people that are a couple of hundred bytes long; it's quite a different story when it's a huge, uncompressed bitmap which does exactly the same job. Sadly, in most e-mail clients either would be just a filename, with no immediate indication of how big it really is. If u insist to have a such function, maybe Mutt can do that... Jiri -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] We'll know the future has arrived when every mailer transparently quotes lines that begin with From , but no-one remembers why. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- |. ICQ : 25529539 || |\ | | | \ / AIM : linhax |___ | | \| |__| / \ IRC nick : linhax Sami Dalouche : [EMAIL PROTECTED]DHIS : pingoo.dhis.org
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
Sami Dalouche wrote: On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 12:37:09PM +0100, BENJAMIN FARRELL wrote: Heres a good point about linux, anyone found a good irc client for x (other than Bitchx in a E-Term :) that doesn't crash everytime you click (yagirc Yes ! There's Bitchx in an X-Term :-) xchat is really nice but if you have/want to stay at the console I'd recommend EPIC with the splitfire script. -- Nathan Valentine - [EMAIL PROTECTED]AIM: NRVesKY - University of Kentucky Linux Users Group http://www.uky.edu/StudentOrgs/UKLUG
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
On 03-Jul-99 Sami Dalouche wrote: anyone). I still find for everyday use Win95/NT is better (quaking, ircing) To a certain extent I have to agree, but where I REALLY think Linux lags behind is email. I miss an email client coming close to for instance Outlook Express and The Bat! for Windows (or even Eudora!). The only one is XFmail which currently is not being developed it seems. And don't reply with: Have you tried mutt? I have. I do not like mutt or elm or any ncursed software (cept for mc!). Im too old for that.. ;) AndX Chat is a great application. I miss a channel favortie/quick join. That's about it. No need to miss Windows there! :) --- Regards, Christian Dysthe Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigfoot.com/~cdysthe ICQ 3945810 Powered by Debian GNU/Linux --- Clones are people two
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
Christian == Christian Dysthe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christian To a certain extent I have to agree, but where I REALLY Christian think Linux lags behind is email. I miss an email client Christian coming close to for instance Outlook Express and The Bat! Christian for Windows (or even Eudora!). Sorry, but OE doesn't deserve to be called a email client. You can't quote quoted-printable encoded mails, you are placed on top on a reply (thous encouraging the newbie to answer above the text and leave a full quote below), the signature is placed above the quoted text, you can't create a proper signature seperator (the space is deleted) etc. These are bug that are present since the first version of OE. And regarding powerful email client: I have yet to see a program on any operating system that comes close to the power of gnus. Ciao, Martin
why should email v's ftp? (was Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???)
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 12:41:34AM -0500, Steve Beitzel wrote: Hey All, Err...I don't mean to nag or anything, but hasn't this thread gotten a little out of hand? I mean, it's like ten days running now, it no longer bears any semblence to the subject, and there has been flaming and sarcasm left and right. It doesn't do the debian user community any good to have many of its good people wrapped up in a pointless thread. Just my $0.02. Steve Well...yes, it has gotten out of hand - but really, why waste it? In simple summury, we have the following issues for large file transfer: email: (the bane of postmasters everywhere) - inefficient file transfer methods. - large amounts of space required on possibly numerous servers for spooling. - difficult for a reciever to choose whether to receive the file or not. - DOS possibilities. ftp/http(et al): - difficult to use, requires a user to know how to use them - to place the files in appropriate places and to pass correct urls to the files. - often not an available alternative due to ISP restrictions. - lack of security (ok, email isn't secure either - but _far_ less people have the technical skills + access to snoop email transfer). So far these are the only protocols mentioned for transfering files between people over the internet. Both have their problems, thus neither is a good solution. Now - I was thinking, what this debian-user lists represents is some of the best computer programmers in the world mixed with one of the largest user bases. Surely between ourselves we have the ability to come up with a Better Way? What is really stopping us from developing a better solution ourselves? These things have to start somewhere... Here is my first suggestion: One program I use regularily on linux is sendfile (see the sendfile package guys). This program is very useful - although it suffers from some of the same problems as email transfer (the file is transfer is done immediately, hence spooling is required, DOS possible, etc). What would be nice is if this program only transfered the file when the user chooses to recieve. This would require the file to be spooled on the senders machine awaiting download - which is a much better solution than transfer then spool. A basic algorithm to do this could be: User requests a file be sent. Their sendfile server (either their local machine or a server that gives them access) will be sent the file and it will store it somewhere. A ticket is then sent back to the user which contains a URL (or similar) for the file plus an authentication code, so that the file can only be downloaded by supplying that code (you could even add support for a limited timeframe to pervent indefinate file storage). This ticket is sent to the recipient (possibly with a email message), and upon receipt the user is given the option to download the file. The recipient could use information such as the sender and the file size to choose to a) download the file, b) not download the file (and remove from the sendfile server or c) differ the choice until later. There is also the possibility to set up automatic download at the client end if required. It would all be part of the client software. Chris -- -- The box said Windows 95, NT or better .. so I installed Debian Linux -- Reply with subject 'request key' for PGP public key. KeyID 0xA9E087D5 pgpya4TnlwbVb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: why should email v's ftp? (was Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???)
Well...yes, it has gotten out of hand - but really, why waste it? And don't forget the entertainment value :) snip One program I use regularily on linux is sendfile (see the sendfile package guys). This program is very useful - although it suffers from some of the same problems as email transfer (the file is transfer is done immediately, hence spooling is required, DOS possible, etc). What would be nice is if this program only transfered the file when the user chooses to recieve. This would require the file to be spooled on the senders machine awaiting download - which is a much better solution than transfer then spool. A basic algorithm to do this could be: User requests a file be sent. Their sendfile server (either their local machine or a server that gives them access) will be sent the file and it will store it somewhere. A ticket is then sent back to the user which contains a URL (or similar) for the file plus an authentication code, so that the file can only be downloaded by supplying that code (you could even add support for a limited timeframe to pervent indefinate file storage). This ticket is sent to the recipient (possibly with a email message), and upon receipt the user is given the option to download the file. The recipient could use information such as the sender and the file size to choose to a) download the file, b) not download the file (and remove from the sendfile server or c) differ the choice until later. There is also the possibility to set up automatic download at the client end if required. It would all be part of the client software. Don't we still have the spooling problem unless you can co-ordinate sender and receiver to be on line in different time zones in different parts of the world simultaneously. Although, thinking about it, maybe we assume that people who use this programme have diald installed and we could include in the email a message to the effect that file transfer will take place at GMT +xxx hrs unless otherwise cancelled. If the transfer is cancelled by the receiver then a message to that effect is emailed to the sender. A scheduler, written as part of this new programme, would then make the ISP connection, interrogate the receiver (are you ready ? type message), if !ready then try again every 5 minutes to a maximum of x (sender specified) attempts and then send the file. Of course, the scheduler on the receiving end would have to know it is the receiver and make the ISP connection at the appropriate time. Sounds like a fantastic project - count me in and put me on the dftp (_D_ebian _F_ile _T_ransfer _P_rotocol) mailing list. Ivan.
Re: why should email v's ftp? (was Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???)
On Tue, Apr 20, 1999 at 08:42:11PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Don't we still have the spooling problem unless you can co-ordinate sender and receiver to be on line in different time zones in different parts of the world simultaneously. Actually - I was thinking that you would pass the task of spooling and serving the files to the senders nearest permenant server (their ISP for example). The ISP would be configured to accept files only from its users, and would implement quota support, etc, etc. The server would be available at all times (excepting failures) thus no co-ordination would be required. Basically, the system would be a bit like having a ftp server - but with more security and no knowlege of the lusers. Sounds like a fantastic project - count me in and put me on the dftp (_D_ebian _F_ile _T_ransfer _P_rotocol) mailing list. Ivan. dftpsounds good ;) Chris -- -- The box said Windows 95, NT or better .. so I installed Debian Linux -- Reply with subject 'request key' for PGP public key. KeyID 0xA9E087D5
Re: why should email v's ftp? (was Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???)
On Tue, Apr 20, 1999 at 11:40:44PM +1000, Chris Leishman wrote: On Tue, Apr 20, 1999 at 08:42:11PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Don't we still have the spooling problem unless you can co-ordinate sender and receiver to be on line in different time zones in different parts of the world simultaneously. Actually - I was thinking that you would pass the task of spooling and serving the files to the senders nearest permenant server (their ISP for example). The ISP would be configured to accept files only from its users, and would implement quota support, etc, etc. The server would be available at all times (excepting failures) thus no co-ordination would be required. Requires co-operation of the ISP - eg. set up spooling directories, prolly another port to firewall etc. As I suggested with an auto co-ordinated log-in nobody except the two parties involved (sender receiver) need know or do anything to make the transfer possible. I suggest that sendfile would make a good starting point for dftp. Is this _too_ off-topic now ? Any objection to corresponding privately ? Of course, all interested people welcome !!! Write to me or Chris and cc whoever you don't write to (does that make sense ? :)) Your comments ? Ivan. Basically, the system would be a bit like having a ftp server - but with more security and no knowlege of the lusers. Sounds like a fantastic project - count me in and put me on the dftp (_D_ebian _F_ile _T_ransfer _P_rotocol) mailing list. Ivan. dftpsounds good ;) Chris -- -- The box said Windows 95, NT or better .. so I installed Debian Linux -- Reply with subject 'request key' for PGP public key. KeyID 0xA9E087D5 -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 01:24:00PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: Wrong. 99.5% of the population has access to an FTP server that will allow aonymous FTP access. They can place the file there. They could also I don't know if that's standard for ISPs in the US, but in the UK it is normal not to have a shell account or FTP space. HTTP is normally avalible, but something like 10-25MB space seems standard. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
At 12:05 AM 4/14/99 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: I don't know if that's standard for ISPs in the US, but in the UK it is normal not to have a shell account or FTP space. HTTP is normally avalible, but something like 10-25MB space seems standard. Which is enough for someone to put in an embedded URL and have the reader download at a time of their own choosing.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sat, Apr 10, 1999 at 12:47:34PM -0700, fockface dickmeat wrote: That's fine if you have a nice little linux box, with a static IP. The 99.5% of the planet that doesn't is screwed. If you don't want large attachments, then set sendmail (or whatever else you're using) to reject it. You shouldn't hope that others follow the rules, protect your system and don't care what they're doing. Wrong. 99.5% of the population has access to an FTP server that will allow aonymous FTP access. They can place the file there. They could also place the file on an HTTP server if they so desire. They do not need to the file to reside on their machine at the time the reader actually opens the file. I have a Linux box with a static IP on a dedicated connection and I do *NOT* have people FTP from it. It only has a 33.6k connection. I FTP to my work's servers and let the reader download at their leasure from a fast site. For the 0.5% that don't have such access, as you so eloquently said, they're screwed. -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! ---+- pgpbRnBrtWNUd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
The thread was declared dead last week. On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Jiri Baum wrote: Hello, John Galt: What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no access to the other's machine, due to dynamic PPP and hostile ISPs, then? This method should be as easy and as transportable as POPmail, not involve other servers in any way save routing, be able to be used internationally, and ensure delivery to only the intended person. Give up? Well so do I. E-mail certainly doesn't solve this problem, because there are far too many easy ways to intercept it. The correct solution is to encrypt the file appropriately, then transport it using usual channels - whether e-mail or ftp. What level of encryption is appropriate depends on the application. One-time-pad is unconditionally secure, if you need that, but unwieldy. Jiri [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sacred cows make the best burgers Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On 12-Apr-99 John Galt wrote: The thread was declared dead last week. Was it? If so, if it died, then that was a result of being force-fed with alien material (long emails, security in email, and the like). Whereas, my original posting that started the thread -- which continues to receive the occasional useful response -- concerned the fact that people who switch from Windows to Linux may find themselves losing access to software they like or need to use. Despite the plea I posted a week ago for people to change the subject line if they wanted to discuss these other issues, it sems that they kept on regardless. If that had the effect that what was intended to be a useful thread was declared dead as a result, then as a final comment on that situation I wish to say that I feel very disappointed by these consequences of how some people handled it. Best wishes to all, Ted. E-Mail: (Ted Harding) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 12-Apr-99 Time: 10:02:00 -- XFMail --
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Jiri Baum: If you have messages that MUST not get into hostile hands, I suggest reading a good cryptography text (sorry, I'm not keeping up with it these days; is `Applied Cryptography' by Bruce Sterling... Jonathan Guthrie: ITYM Bruce Schneier. Yeah, that one. Bruce Sterling is someone else. Weapon safety tip: before shooting yourself in the foot, remove it from your mouth. Jiri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Jiri Baum wrote: Hello, John Galt: Most crypto is based on a similar setup to email, Umm, no, cryptography is the art of writing messages that can only be decoded by the intended recipient. Very little to do with e-mail. If you have messages that MUST not get into hostile hands, I suggest reading a good cryptography text (sorry, I'm not keeping up with it these days; is `Applied Cryptography' by Bruce Sterling still the standard reference?) or hiring a security expert, or both. I think you mean Bruce Schneier. (Isn't Bruce Sterling a sci-fi writer?) It probably is the standard reference. Look at his site, by the way: http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram.html Nifty. A program like PGP, properly used, can give you a reasonable trade-off between security and convenience. However, depending on your requirements, stronger encryption may be warranted (whether that means steganography or one-time-pad). I'm not so sure I'd say steganography is stronger, after seeing the article on it on the above-mentioned site. ;-) But I admit I have a shallow understanding of that fascinating subject (cryptography, that is), alas...
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
I regarded it as the fact that you were declaring the part that I was dealing with dead. I will continue to do so, unless there's something I can add to the windoze thing--probably once I start playing with wine. On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12-Apr-99 John Galt wrote: The thread was declared dead last week. Was it? If so, if it died, then that was a result of being force-fed with alien material (long emails, security in email, and the like). Whereas, my original posting that started the thread -- which continues to receive the occasional useful response -- concerned the fact that people who switch from Windows to Linux may find themselves losing access to software they like or need to use. Despite the plea I posted a week ago for people to change the subject line if they wanted to discuss these other issues, it sems that they kept on regardless. If that had the effect that what was intended to be a useful thread was declared dead as a result, then as a final comment on that situation I wish to say that I feel very disappointed by these consequences of how some people handled it. Best wishes to all, Ted. E-Mail: (Ted Harding) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 12-Apr-99 Time: 10:02:00 -- XFMail -- I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own decisions. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Hello, John Galt: What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no access to the other's machine, due to dynamic PPP and hostile ISPs, then? This method should be as easy and as transportable as POPmail, not involve other servers in any way save routing, be able to be used internationally, and ensure delivery to only the intended person. Give up? Well so do I. E-mail certainly doesn't solve this problem, because there are far too many easy ways to intercept it. The correct solution is to encrypt the file appropriately, then transport it using usual channels - whether e-mail or ftp. What level of encryption is appropriate depends on the application. One-time-pad is unconditionally secure, if you need that, but unwieldy. Jiri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Hello, John Galt: Most crypto is based on a similar setup to email, Umm, no, cryptography is the art of writing messages that can only be decoded by the intended recipient. Very little to do with e-mail. If you have messages that MUST not get into hostile hands, I suggest reading a good cryptography text (sorry, I'm not keeping up with it these days; is `Applied Cryptography' by Bruce Sterling still the standard reference?) or hiring a security expert, or both. A program like PGP, properly used, can give you a reasonable trade-off between security and convenience. However, depending on your requirements, stronger encryption may be warranted (whether that means steganography or one-time-pad). Gary Singleton: CITATION dyndns.org to eliminate the dynamic IP problem. proftpd to provide file transfer protocol service. New ISP if yours is hostile. Lotus notes for document revision control. /CITATION I'd suggest CVS for collaborative document revision control. Jiri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Jiri Baum wrote: If you have messages that MUST not get into hostile hands, I suggest reading a good cryptography text (sorry, I'm not keeping up with it these days; is `Applied Cryptography' by Bruce Sterling... ITYM Bruce Schneier. -- Jonathan Guthrie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Brokersys +281-895-8101 http://www.brokersys.com/ 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: then welcome. That is why I am so vehemently opposed to anyone using email for large attachments. That is why I say that as the size of the attachment The commercial world is a far more practical place. You can't take a stand on large email attachments for philosophical reasons. Especially, if both the sender and receiver are sitting beyond firewalls where email is the only practical way of exchanging messages and files. Torsten -- Homepage: http://www.in-berlin.de/User/myrkr
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
The technology is there to send large files easily. Embed a URL into an email message and most email clients will automatically launch either the FTP client to get the file, or the browser which has FTP capabilities to get the file. That's fine if you have a nice little linux box, with a static IP. The 99.5% of the planet that doesn't is screwed. If you don't want large attachments, then set sendmail (or whatever else you're using) to reject it. You shouldn't hope that others follow the rules, protect your system and don't care what they're doing. This is the proper thing to do since it then lets the other end decide not only *IF* they want the file, but *when* then want the file. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwGoVXpf7K2LbpnFEQLd7wCgmnFvZT7HoLS//8DiYB+i/AjNRXwAn3Vz zL1W9KRssdFPIKrw42S8zPuh =ncVg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null ___ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
from sunsite's rfc-index 196 Watson, R. Mail Box Protocol (Not online) 1971 July 20; 4 p. (Obsoleted by RFC 221) On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Steve Lamb wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:36:40 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote: But the emailing standard predates both FTP and HTTP, thus the situation existed once. Excuse me? Which emailing standard? AFAICT by the RFCs email emerged as its own protocol around the 700s. Meanwhile FTP was being discussed back in the 400s more than 7 years previous to 780, Mail Transfer Protocol and 8 years before Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. To me, FTP predates SMTP/POP/IMAP by quite a bit, esp. when most of the eariler mail documents refer to moving mail via FTP. and the situation also existed once wherein joe wasn't an option, thus vi was required learning. Once, but not *now*. The DoS attack is going to exist no matter what is done to stop it. It is an artifact of TCP/IP networking: the only thing that can truly not be denied is what isn't there. Shutting down a part of an existing protocol because of it is ludicrous at best. The professionals that keep the internet running, for the most part, know this, thus the minor fact that large attachments to email exist to this date. Much to the begrudgement of every postmaster I've ever spoken to. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNws6S3pf7K2LbpnFEQJDbwCfXDLjjxSNd50U9a1M22GPavCZoJEAoLkf M4V8ZNflsbS5vnm72IO9soub =PJxn -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null Customer: I'm running Windows '98 Tech: Yes. Customer: My computer isn't working now. Tech: Yes, you said that. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Hey All, Err...I don't mean to nag or anything, but hasn't this thread gotten a little out of hand? I mean, it's like ten days running now, it no longer bears any semblence to the subject, and there has been flaming and sarcasm left and right. It doesn't do the debian user community any good to have many of its good people wrapped up in a pointless thread. Just my $0.02. Steve On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, John Galt wrote: from sunsite's rfc-index 196 Watson, R. Mail Box Protocol (Not online) 1971 July 20; 4 p. (Obsoleted by RFC 221) On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Steve Lamb wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:36:40 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote: But the emailing standard predates both FTP and HTTP, thus the situation existed once. Excuse me? Which emailing standard? AFAICT by the RFCs email emerged as its own protocol around the 700s. Meanwhile FTP was being discussed back in the 400s more than 7 years previous to 780, Mail Transfer Protocol and 8 years before Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. To me, FTP predates SMTP/POP/IMAP by quite a bit, esp. when most of the eariler mail documents refer to moving mail via FTP. and the situation also existed once wherein joe wasn't an option, thus vi was required learning. Once, but not *now*. The DoS attack is going to exist no matter what is done to stop it. It is an artifact of TCP/IP networking: the only thing that can truly not be denied is what isn't there. Shutting down a part of an existing protocol because of it is ludicrous at best. The professionals that keep the internet running, for the most part, know this, thus the minor fact that large attachments to email exist to this date. Much to the begrudgement of every postmaster I've ever spoken to. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNws6S3pf7K2LbpnFEQJDbwCfXDLjjxSNd50U9a1M22GPavCZoJEAoLkf M4V8ZNflsbS5vnm72IO9soub =PJxn -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null Customer: I'm running Windows '98 Tech: Yes. Customer: My computer isn't working now. Tech: Yes, you said that. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who! -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 05:28:08PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: Internet Protocols: FTP: Name says it all. HTTP: Not as nice as FTP, but it still is worlds better than email. Intranet Protocols: SMB: Microsoft to the rescue FTP: Still works HTTP: Hey, still works. NFS: Works wonders, esp. for shared projects. If none of those are available. TOUGH SHIT, MAIL IT. Which of these protocols supports attaching files to email messages? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 09:06:09PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: Well, one guy came up with a great situation. What if... What if I were on a machine that had no compiler, had no net access, no floppy drive, had no other editors or things which could be used *as* editors (sed ed come to mind) but did have vi. How would I then edit files? I declared the machine unusable as it was obviously so archaic and/or esoteric that it is beyond and reasonable need of mine and I would promptly turn it off and find a real machine. It must be nice to live in a world where you can just walk away if your favourite tools aren't available. Unfortunately, most of us don't. What if... What if both FTP and HTTP are unavailable. In such a situation, you've got problems more than email because if those two *basic* and *standard* protocols aren't available then your network is, in a word, fucked. Not at all. You've heard of UUCP, I assume? then welcome. That is why I am so vehemently opposed to anyone using email for large attachments. That is why I say that as the size of the attachment The commercial world is a far more practical place. You can't take a stand on large email attachments for philosophical reasons. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sat, Apr 03, 1999 at 11:00:26PM +0100, Andrew Holmes wrote: Hi, Wouldn't it be nice if POP mail boxes could be set to automatically bounce messages over a certain size as soon as they arrive at the ISP :-) to avoid downloading long letters you can use the -l option of fetchmail -Michele
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
--- John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Gary Singleton wrote: --- John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no access to the other's machine, due to dynamic PPP and hostile ISPs, then? Dynamic IP addresses can be taken care of using services like dyndns.org, ddns.org many others. My machine is online several hours a day using dyndns, I have the proftpd server running and can allow secure access via this or even using Apache. If I was to have such a hostile ISP I would switch to one of the many available in most areas of the world. Many ISPs however might be considered hostile by newbies for not allowing large attachments or charging for excess mail storage. So what you're proposing instead of large attachments to email is for the end user to set up two different services and quite possibly change their ISP. While we're at it, what else do you want to make into a major headache so you don't have to use procmail? I've got it, let's rewrite TCP/IP so that no more than 1KB of packets may be transmitted between peers without authentication, that oughta make you EXTREMELY pleased. Yes, my provided alternatives to solve your original problems were to get a dyndns.org account and set up an ftp server. It's really not that difficult and is much more convenient. The recipient is notified of the file and is able to retrieve it at his convenience. FTP (not anonymous) is at least as secure as email so that part is also taken care of. I shouldn't have to change my email setup to compensate for others inconsiderate behavior. Also, if I had what I considered a hostile ISP, you bet I'd find a new one. As to rewriting TCP/IP, I'm the one trying to stay within accepted protocol; you are advocating bending or rewriting the rules to legitimize your methods. This method should be as easy and as transportable as POPmail, not involve other servers in any way save routing, be able to be used internationally, and ensure delivery to only the intended person. Why, just to bend the rules to your definition of what the method should be? That's a little like saying I'm now using the internet, you must all bend to my definition of what e-mail should be. No, I was describing the basis of sending a large attachment via email--POPmail, the only servers in use are temporarily the routing hosts and the ends, and relatively secure delivery--there are ways to intercept email, but there are also ways to intercept ALL TCP/IP packets with a similar amount of work. So my bend[ing] the rules is no more than telling you that something has to be as useful as all other alternatives before it can be unequivocally the right way. The reason I brought up security of email the first time was to make you aware that it is no more secure than other methods just because it is destined to a specific recipient. Give up? Well so do I. Solve this problem before you beef about how large attachments to email is evil. You can give up if you like, but I'll continue to take the position that e-mail is for message exchange not file exchange. There are established methods for secure file transfer by the way, e-mail is most definitely not the most secure method of transfer for any file that MUST not get into unfriendly hands. Most crypto is based on a similar setup to email, and your established methods don't mean anything without citation, which is what I asked for in the first place. It's true that email is for message exchange, but what happens when the message happens to be a chapter of a book with formatting intact? Your broad stroke of no large attachments to email just nuked collaborative publishing, as my stepfather (when he was co-authoring his textbook) emailed revisions to chapters of his book, which he said was the accepted standard in the publishing community (I didn't really care much about the whys and wherefores when he did it--he and I have semi strained relations at best). The encryption issue has already been addressed as well as my solution for your problems. To summarize: dyndns.org, proftpd, new ISP. There are document control systems that would be much better for writing a book than emailing chapters to one another. I've used Lotus Notes (admittedly not a Linux product) in the past for exactly this function. My broad stroke wouldn't nuke anything, it would however force the adoption of a better method. I would have expected the publishing community to have developed something a little more advanced - surprising. I will continue to beef about large attachments when they are sent to me and mine unrequested unwelcome. There are solutions available if you would look, perhaps they're not as
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Frankly I couldn't care less about whether or not you use procmail, exim, or UUCP. Any and all of them have the capability to accept attachments. My point is that there are times when large attachments to email are not only desirable, but the easiest solution. I agree that there is abuse, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. FYI I did the large attachment over email thing on a 14.4 modem, and I had no real problem because I asked dad to send it to me--and neither he nor I had Zip disks at the time: this has changed since then, but then again, Zip disks weren't on the market when I did this--so you're too late: and 1.44M/disk was a bit on the punishing side. The technology for large attachemnts over email existed long before sneakernetting large files was feasable for the home PC (however I remember sneakernetting a 5-platter disk-pack for a Basic-4 many a moon ago, those things are HEAVY). In fact, I asked for the correct protocol, and all you gave me was sneakernet. Sneakernet is never the correct protocol, it's just a quick and dirty method of getting files between comps when you don't wish to use the correct protocol. On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Steve Lamb wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 04:44:00 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote: SNEAKERNET just because YOU can't configure procmail? I'd say that your failure to configure procmail is YOUR problem, not one to be visited on the internet at large. I've sneakernetted files of a size that would make you blanch in my day, but I see no reason to do this as a matter of protocol, not when there exists a simple method to do so, regardless of whether or not you like the method. Because I can't configure procmail? 1: I can configure procmail. 2: I choose not to because I use Exim's filtering 3: I can configure Exim's filtering. 4: None of which matters because I operate my own connection on a 33.6k modem which means the file is ALREADY received before I get a chance to filter it. When there exists a simple method. There are several such methods which are PROPER. But if the IT department doesn'y allow them, tough. If the ISP doesn't allow them, change ISPs. But use the proper protocol. That is what is known as playing nice in the playground with the other kids. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwoUTHpf7K2LbpnFEQJL8wCfTspPTncO6sxom8ULHeu0LmYx52UAn0SD LA6PSPBpdL3TbUCxr+KFegh+ =EGv8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:23:35 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote: Basic-4 many a moon ago, those things are HEAVY). In fact, I asked for the correct protocol, and all you gave me was sneakernet. Sneakernet is never the correct protocol, it's just a quick and dirty method of getting files between comps when you don't wish to use the correct protocol. And this is why discussions go on endlessly. Because people jump into the middle without bothering to gain the context of the conversation. Want the correct protocol for getting a file from machine A to machine B? Internet Protocols: FTP: Name says it all. HTTP: Not as nice as FTP, but it still is worlds better than email. Intranet Protocols: SMB: Microsoft to the rescue FTP: Still works HTTP: Hey, still works. NFS: Works wonders, esp. for shared projects. If none of those are available. TOUGH SHIT, MAIL IT. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwqmmHpf7K2LbpnFEQKAIACfUL93NIUhrmptblv/wOtNl6Pg6l8AnjNj KJkWxD0hoVCxPsdLc/Th+PMy =UzJk -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? We're both right as far as it goes--you have the most elegant solution, I have the quick and dirty solution. Both are partly right and partly wrong, mine because there's abuse, yours because it's a hassle beyond the worth of most attachments and dependent on the charity of others. But please remember that not all attachments are evil--some of them are at least benign, if not good. On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Gary Singleton wrote: --- John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Gary Singleton wrote: --- John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no access to the other's machine, due to dynamic PPP and hostile ISPs, then? Dynamic IP addresses can be taken care of using services like dyndns.org, ddns.org many others. My machine is online several hours a day using dyndns, I have the proftpd server running and can allow secure access via this or even using Apache. If I was to have such a hostile ISP I would switch to one of the many available in most areas of the world. Many ISPs however might be considered hostile by newbies for not allowing large attachments or charging for excess mail storage. So what you're proposing instead of large attachments to email is for the end user to set up two different services and quite possibly change their ISP. While we're at it, what else do you want to make into a major headache so you don't have to use procmail? I've got it, let's rewrite TCP/IP so that no more than 1KB of packets may be transmitted between peers without authentication, that oughta make you EXTREMELY pleased. Yes, my provided alternatives to solve your original problems were to get a dyndns.org account and set up an ftp server. It's really not that difficult and is much more convenient. The recipient is notified of the file and is able to retrieve it at his convenience. FTP (not anonymous) is at least as secure as email so that part is also taken care of. I shouldn't have to change my email setup to compensate for others inconsiderate behavior. Also, if I had what I considered a hostile ISP, you bet I'd find a new one. As to rewriting TCP/IP, I'm the one trying to stay within accepted protocol; you are advocating bending or rewriting the rules to legitimize your methods. This method should be as easy and as transportable as POPmail, not involve other servers in any way save routing, be able to be used internationally, and ensure delivery to only the intended person. Why, just to bend the rules to your definition of what the method should be? That's a little like saying I'm now using the internet, you must all bend to my definition of what e-mail should be. No, I was describing the basis of sending a large attachment via email--POPmail, the only servers in use are temporarily the routing hosts and the ends, and relatively secure delivery--there are ways to intercept email, but there are also ways to intercept ALL TCP/IP packets with a similar amount of work. So my bend[ing] the rules is no more than telling you that something has to be as useful as all other alternatives before it can be unequivocally the right way. The reason I brought up security of email the first time was to make you aware that it is no more secure than other methods just because it is destined to a specific recipient. Give up? Well so do I. Solve this problem before you beef about how large attachments to email is evil. You can give up if you like, but I'll continue to take the position that e-mail is for message exchange not file exchange. There are established methods for secure file transfer by the way, e-mail is most definitely not the most secure method of transfer for any file that MUST not get into unfriendly hands. Most crypto is based on a similar setup to email, and your established methods don't mean anything without citation, which is what I asked for in the first place. It's true that email is for message exchange, but what happens when the message happens to be a chapter of a book with formatting intact? Your broad stroke of no large attachments to email just nuked collaborative publishing, as my stepfather (when he was co-authoring his textbook) emailed revisions to chapters of his book, which he said was the accepted standard in the publishing community (I didn't really care much about the whys and wherefores when he did it--he and I have semi strained relations at best). The encryption issue has already been addressed as well as my solution for your problems. To summarize: dyndns.org, proftpd, new ISP. There
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
I posited a problem wherein FTP and HTTP were both unavailable, so the obvious solution is mail--NOT snail mail, email. The abuses are there, but there are times when FTP and HTTP are unusable-- in fact, there are bridge sites that let you FTP - email, HTTP - FTP is regularly done in most browsers, and HTTP - email is a curse upon all text-based mailing programs: if there wasn't a need to use a different protocol based on context, none of these bridges would exist or be used (FTP-email is dying because of the extensive use of the HTTP - FTP bridge and other problems). This problem is going to be with us a long time, and carping about the unsuitability one of the protocols for large files ain't helping. On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Steve Lamb wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:23:35 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote: Basic-4 many a moon ago, those things are HEAVY). In fact, I asked for the correct protocol, and all you gave me was sneakernet. Sneakernet is never the correct protocol, it's just a quick and dirty method of getting files between comps when you don't wish to use the correct protocol. And this is why discussions go on endlessly. Because people jump into the middle without bothering to gain the context of the conversation. Want the correct protocol for getting a file from machine A to machine B? Internet Protocols: FTP: Name says it all. HTTP: Not as nice as FTP, but it still is worlds better than email. Intranet Protocols: SMB: Microsoft to the rescue FTP: Still works HTTP: Hey, still works. NFS: Works wonders, esp. for shared projects. If none of those are available. TOUGH SHIT, MAIL IT. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwqmmHpf7K2LbpnFEQKAIACfUL93NIUhrmptblv/wOtNl6Pg6l8AnjNj KJkWxD0hoVCxPsdLc/Th+PMy =UzJk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Sure, sounds good to me; I'm tired anyway. Truth be known I've sent a more than a few files through the mail myself G. Anyways, I'm down in Boise, if you ever get down this way let me know. Best wishes, G.S. --- John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? We're both right as far as it goes--you have the most elegant solution, I have the quick and dirty solution. Both are partly right and partly wrong, mine because there's abuse, yours because it's a hassle beyond the worth of most attachments and dependent on the charity of others. But please remember that not all attachments are evil--some of them are at least benign, if not good. --major snippage-- _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 19:10:33 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote: I posited a problem wherein FTP and HTTP were both unavailable, so the obvious solution is mail--NOT snail mail, email. And if email isn't available? And the protocol after that? And after that? It reminds me of a discussion a while back I had in the newsgroups against people who were so determined that everyone must know how to use vi to be called unix proficient. I told them I've been using Linux for 2+ years, unix in general for 5+ years, was a SysAdmin and didn't know, care to know, or felt the need to learn vi. My answer, joe. Well, one guy came up with a great situation. What if... What if I were on a machine that had no compiler, had no net access, no floppy drive, had no other editors or things which could be used *as* editors (sed ed come to mind) but did have vi. How would I then edit files? I declared the machine unusable as it was obviously so archaic and/or esoteric that it is beyond and reasonable need of mine and I would promptly turn it off and find a real machine. Your situation is the same. It is easy to make a case where your answer is the only solution simply by excluding all other viable solutions. What if... What if both FTP and HTTP are unavailable. In such a situation, you've got problems more than email because if those two *basic* and *standard* protocols aren't available then your network is, in a word, fucked. As in the situation with vi, there comes a point when you just go elsewhere for the solution. Just because every sane protocol is unavailable gives you a reason to break and abuse any protocol which is left and, further, to demand that other systems allow you to break said protocol. In my 6 month tenure as postmaster at my former job, a local ISP, I had two people complain to me because we would not allow email messages larger than 5Mb. They would not hear about DoS issues, or storage issues, or how to properly move the data, they wanted their attachments or else. I told both, or else. If they could find an ISP which suited their needs, they were more then welcome. That is why I am so vehemently opposed to anyone using email for large attachments. That is why I say that as the size of the attachment goes up, its value goes down. At some point it is better to use another protocol for a variety of technical and social reasons, EVEN IF it is the only protocol available (IE, another protocol is mail it) and EVEN IF the file is requested by the other user. The abuses are there, but there are times when FTP and HTTP are unusable-- And in those cases I have described the proper response. If it is an ISP, change ISPs. Any ISP which does not provide space and the meens for anonymous FTP and web space with a functional HTTP server is screwing you. If it is because of corporate policy, either use an ISP or go over IT's head because they are obviously a bunch of clueless nits. In the interim, mail it. This problem is going to be with us a long time, and carping about the unsuitability one of the protocols for large files ain't helping. Meanwhile another problem is going to be with us for a long time. It is caled the Denial of Service attack. Furthermore, even legit attachments cause problems. In some cases with qpopper and Eudora (All versions to date) if a large attachment (1Mb is large enough) hits the mailbox, Eudora chokes and will not download it. Outlook(9X/Express) has a similar problem, I just don't know the rough size that triggers it. A person who uses PMMail got a 6.5Mb attachment. PMMail would download it fine, but he wanted to get it last, not first, and is now looking to the authors for a way to have PMMail not automatically fetch upon startup, at his discretion, so he can get the other messages first and then let PMMail get that one on the next check. Encouraging an abuse of the mail protocols doesn't help any of these and all three are problems that the professionals that keep the Internet running day in and day out encounter on a nearly daily, if not hourly basis. How about this, if email is such a viable option for files, why isn't there an email method for dselect? Silly? That is how I see the whole idea of large files through email. Sure, someone could make an email method for dselect, and it would work, and, by your elimination of other options, someone really shoud. What if... What if someone doesn't have a floppy drive, doesn't have a CDROM, can't FTP, can't use HTTP, but somehow got Debian onto the machine in the first place and wants to upgrade? - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Steve Lamb wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 19:10:33 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote: I posited a problem wherein FTP and HTTP were both unavailable, so the obvious solution is mail--NOT snail mail, email. And if email isn't available? And the protocol after that? And after that? But the emailing standard predates both FTP and HTTP, thus the situation existed once. It reminds me of a discussion a while back I had in the newsgroups against people who were so determined that everyone must know how to use vi to be called unix proficient. I told them I've been using Linux for 2+ years, unix in general for 5+ years, was a SysAdmin and didn't know, care to know, or felt the need to learn vi. My answer, joe. and the situation also existed once wherein joe wasn't an option, thus vi was required learning. Well, one guy came up with a great situation. What if... What if I were on a machine that had no compiler, had no net access, no floppy drive, had no other editors or things which could be used *as* editors (sed ed come to mind) but did have vi. How would I then edit files? I declared the machine unusable as it was obviously so archaic and/or esoteric that it is beyond and reasonable need of mine and I would promptly turn it off and find a real machine. try doing that in the pre-joe days, and your alternative might've been not to use a computer at all. Your situation is the same. It is easy to make a case where your answer is the only solution simply by excluding all other viable solutions. What if... What if both FTP and HTTP are unavailable. In such a situation, you've got problems more than email because if those two *basic* and *standard* protocols aren't available then your network is, in a word, fucked. Maybe, but why the FTP-email gateways then? it might have been that they were once needed, no? As in the situation with vi, there comes a point when you just go elsewhere for the solution. Just because every sane protocol is unavailable gives you a reason to break and abuse any protocol which is left and, further, to demand that other systems allow you to break said protocol. In my 6 month tenure as postmaster at my former job, a local ISP, I had two people complain to me because we would not allow email messages larger than 5Mb. They would not hear about DoS issues, or storage issues, or how to properly move the data, they wanted their attachments or else. I told both, or else. If they could find an ISP which suited their needs, they were more then welcome. That is why I am so vehemently opposed to anyone using email for large attachments. That is why I say that as the size of the attachment goes up, its value goes down. At some point it is better to use another protocol for a variety of technical and social reasons, EVEN IF it is the only protocol available (IE, another protocol is mail it) and EVEN IF the file is requested by the other user. So you threw out the baby with the bathwater, then blamed the people who complained about the lack of the baby? I just redefined hostile ISP--mine is positively friendly by those standards. The variety of technical reasons are all recent additions: FTP was actually a solution to the large attachments problem, but not a complete one--mostly because the site-building and access granting process was more trouble than some files was worth. HTTP was another solution, provided that you didn't mind making the file world-readable. Thus the protocol of email isn't being broken when a large attachment is sent via email, it's being used as intended, you have just misconstrued the fixes as being complete, which they're still not. The abuses are there, but there are times when FTP and HTTP are unusable-- And in those cases I have described the proper response. If it is an ISP, change ISPs. Any ISP which does not provide space and the meens for anonymous FTP and web space with a functional HTTP server is screwing you. If it is because of corporate policy, either use an ISP or go over IT's head because they are obviously a bunch of clueless nits. In the interim, mail it. Hm. I guess that the old DECnet must've been hell for you then. This problem is going to be with us a long time, and carping about the unsuitability one of the protocols for large files ain't helping. Meanwhile another problem is going to be with us for a long time. It is caled the Denial of Service attack. Furthermore, even legit attachments cause problems. In some cases with qpopper and Eudora (All versions to date) if a large attachment (1Mb is large enough) hits the mailbox, Eudora chokes and will not download it. Outlook(9X/Express) has a similar problem, I just don't know the rough size that triggers it. A person who uses PMMail got a 6.5Mb attachment. PMMail would download it fine, but he wanted to get it
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:36:40 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote: But the emailing standard predates both FTP and HTTP, thus the situation existed once. Excuse me? Which emailing standard? AFAICT by the RFCs email emerged as its own protocol around the 700s. Meanwhile FTP was being discussed back in the 400s more than 7 years previous to 780, Mail Transfer Protocol and 8 years before Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. To me, FTP predates SMTP/POP/IMAP by quite a bit, esp. when most of the eariler mail documents refer to moving mail via FTP. and the situation also existed once wherein joe wasn't an option, thus vi was required learning. Once, but not *now*. The DoS attack is going to exist no matter what is done to stop it. It is an artifact of TCP/IP networking: the only thing that can truly not be denied is what isn't there. Shutting down a part of an existing protocol because of it is ludicrous at best. The professionals that keep the internet running, for the most part, know this, thus the minor fact that large attachments to email exist to this date. Much to the begrudgement of every postmaster I've ever spoken to. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNws6S3pf7K2LbpnFEQJDbwCfXDLjjxSNd50U9a1M22GPavCZoJEAoLkf M4V8ZNflsbS5vnm72IO9soub =PJxn -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Hi, I doubt that my ISP would agree to that :-) But I could ask. On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 05:33:31PM -0500, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Andrew Holmes wrote: Wouldn't it be nice if POP mail boxes could be set to automatically bounce messages over a certain size as soon as they arrive at the ISP :-) That would be the MAX_MESSAGE_SIZE configuration parameter from sendmail.cf, now, wouldn't it? -- Andy Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] The path of my life is strewn with cow pats from the devil's own satanic herd!, Edmund Blackadder
What DO you lose with Linux
Howdy all... I saw a message in this thread pass by a couple of days ago... It was talking about some software called VMWare. Http://www.vmware.com Anyone that has a PC with Linux Win 9x/NT installed needs to see this site. I've downloaded the software for Linux (still in the first beta stages), but it works,and works well. It allows you to run Linux Win 9x/NT on the same PC at the same time! I've got a Pentium 200 MMX system, with 48 megs of ram... Linux runs the Vmware program, that runs NT 4.0... While under VMWare, NT runs a little slower, but it is still VERY usable. I reccommend this program to anyone who has Linux Win on the same machine, and a fast computer (A Pentium II 233/266 w/32 megs of ram would be nice). See Ya, Brant
Re: What DO you lose with Linux
Is there a deb? Brant Wells wrote: Howdy all... I saw a message in this thread pass by a couple of days ago... It was talking about some software called VMWare. Http://www.vmware.com Anyone that has a PC with Linux Win 9x/NT installed needs to see this site. I've downloaded the software for Linux (still in the first beta stages), but it works,and works well. It allows you to run Linux Win 9x/NT on the same PC at the same time! I've got a Pentium 200 MMX system, with 48 megs of ram... Linux runs the Vmware program, that runs NT 4.0... While under VMWare, NT runs a little slower, but it is still VERY usable. I reccommend this program to anyone who has Linux Win on the same machine, and a fast computer (A Pentium II 233/266 w/32 megs of ram would be nice). See Ya, Brant -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- Shao Zhang - Running Debian 2.1 ___ _ _ Department of Communications/ __| |_ __ _ ___ |_ / |_ __ _ _ _ __ _ University of New South Wales \__ \ ' \/ _` / _ \ / /| ' \/ _` | ' \/ _` | Sydney, Australia |___/_||_\__,_\___/ /___|_||_\__,_|_||_\__, | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |___/ _
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Okay, I guess this is a good thing, but what about when the permission is given already? And what about when the holding area is unavailable, such as with ISPs that give you enough server space to hold your configuration files and not much more? If these problems ahve a simplish solution, I guess I have my answer. On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, George Bonser wrote: On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Gary Singleton wrote: --- John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no access to the other's machine, due to dynamic PPP and hostile ISPs, then? Look at the Linux package sendfile and the preliminary draft of the RFC for the saft profocol. The way it works is this: I send a file to [EMAIL PROTECTED] That machine collects the file and puts it in a configurable holding area. Then the recipient is notified that a file is waiting for them and they can choose to accept or reject the file. If it is rejected, it is deleted. If accepted, it is placed in the user's directory. George Bonser Support The THING -- http://shorelink.com/~grep/THING.html -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null Sacred cows make the best burgers Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
SNEAKERNET just because YOU can't configure procmail? I'd say that your failure to configure procmail is YOUR problem, not one to be visited on the internet at large. I've sneakernetted files of a size that would make you blanch in my day, but I see no reason to do this as a matter of protocol, not when there exists a simple method to do so, regardless of whether or not you like the method. On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Steve Lamb wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 13:06:47 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote: What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no access to the other's machine, due to dynamic PPP and hostile ISPs, then? This method should be as easy and as transportable as POPmail, not involve other servers in any way save routing, be able to be used internationally, and ensure delivery to only the intended person. Give up? Well so do I. Solve this problem before you beef about how large attachments to email is evil. Why? The percentage of people who have that problem are so small it really is their problem. They can switch ISPs, they can go over their IT department's head and get stuff done, but it is THEIR problem. If they don't like it, too bad. And to answer your question, a ZIP disk and next day air works wonders. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwfwLnpf7K2LbpnFEQLz2wCfQrH88grCtbsyKPEcVZGxWk/m+1EAn0Gk n4YatJ70MGT/HJ0SVlV5wlsz =FSSl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null Sacred cows make the best burgers Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 04:37:54 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote: Okay, I guess this is a good thing, but what about when the permission is given already? And what about when the holding area is unavailable, such as with ISPs that give you enough server space to hold your configuration files and not much more? If these problems ahve a simplish solution, I guess I have my answer. As I said in my original message on the topic, too bad, tough luck, try again later. It sounds harsh, but sometimes you have to draw a line. When people are operating under idiot IT people or are subscribed to an ISP that is restrictive, well, that is their problem and not something that the entire Internet community as a whole should suffer for. And, as always, a ZIP disk and next day air is always available. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwoTdHpf7K2LbpnFEQKMCgCgtDU38xgk+Kn03XNzXg2AmUvFgk0An0nX e4d3C80ErkwSTAPgmgawkvN+ =DGmI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 04:44:00 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote: SNEAKERNET just because YOU can't configure procmail? I'd say that your failure to configure procmail is YOUR problem, not one to be visited on the internet at large. I've sneakernetted files of a size that would make you blanch in my day, but I see no reason to do this as a matter of protocol, not when there exists a simple method to do so, regardless of whether or not you like the method. Because I can't configure procmail? 1: I can configure procmail. 2: I choose not to because I use Exim's filtering 3: I can configure Exim's filtering. 4: None of which matters because I operate my own connection on a 33.6k modem which means the file is ALREADY received before I get a chance to filter it. When there exists a simple method. There are several such methods which are PROPER. But if the IT department doesn'y allow them, tough. If the ISP doesn't allow them, change ISPs. But use the proper protocol. That is what is known as playing nice in the playground with the other kids. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwoUTHpf7K2LbpnFEQJL8wCfTspPTncO6sxom8ULHeu0LmYx52UAn0SD LA6PSPBpdL3TbUCxr+KFegh+ =EGv8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Mon, Apr 05, 1999 at 03:47:49AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:43:46 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: The fact that these things are useless to you is seperate to their size. There are small, useless attachments just as much as their are large, useful ones. I don't think we should ignore large, useful attachments just because large, useless ones exist. As the size of an attachment increases, the value of it decresses. I disagree. I maintain that the size and value of an attachment are orthogonal. There comes a point where one should not send the attachment, period, and use other means which have been available for years. Who are you to dictate this to me? If you can come up with a 100% transparent method of doing the actual file transfer via FTP or sendfile-type mechanisms, then that's excellent and it should be adopted. If not, I'll keep using email thanks. Perhaps it would be better if there were an 8-bit clean email system so that base64 encoding wasn't needed. That would save us a bunch of space too. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 07:00:20AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: is restrictive, well, that is their problem and not something that the entire Internet community as a whole should suffer for. And, as always, a ^^ ZIP disk and next day air is always available. Really, Steve, this is just drivel. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Andrew Holmes wrote: Wouldn't it be nice if POP mail boxes could be set to automatically bounce messages over a certain size as soon as they arrive at the ISP :-) That would be the MAX_MESSAGE_SIZE configuration parameter from sendmail.cf, now, wouldn't it? -- Jonathan Guthrie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Brokersys +281-895-8101 http://www.brokersys.com/ 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 13:06:47 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote: What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no access to the other's machine, due to dynamic PPP and hostile ISPs, then? This method should be as easy and as transportable as POPmail, not involve other servers in any way save routing, be able to be used internationally, and ensure delivery to only the intended person. Give up? Well so do I. Solve this problem before you beef about how large attachments to email is evil. Why? The percentage of people who have that problem are so small it really is their problem. They can switch ISPs, they can go over their IT department's head and get stuff done, but it is THEIR problem. If they don't like it, too bad. And to answer your question, a ZIP disk and next day air works wonders. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwfwLnpf7K2LbpnFEQLz2wCfQrH88grCtbsyKPEcVZGxWk/m+1EAn0Gk n4YatJ70MGT/HJ0SVlV5wlsz =FSSl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
--- George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Gary Singleton wrote: --- John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no access to the other's machine, due to dynamic PPP and hostile ISPs, then? Look at the Linux package sendfile and the preliminary draft of the RFC for the saft profocol. The way it works is this: I send a file to [EMAIL PROTECTED] That machine collects the file and puts it in a configurable holding area. Then the recipient is notified that a file is waiting for them and they can choose to accept or reject the file. If it is rejected, it is deleted. If accepted, it is placed in the user's directory. Well, it certainly _seems_ to fit all of the stated requirements. I found http://www.belwue.de/aktivitaeten/projekte/saft/index-us.html doing a quick search for it. Good stuff, and it's being done the right way; an RFC in place of a megapowerful software house just forcing features as new standards. I like it. Thanks George. G.S. George Bonser Support The THING -- http://shorelink.com/~grep/THING.html _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hamish What is your point? I never claimed unsolicited attachments Hamish were acceptable, only that solicited ones of any size should Hamish work. Then pay for it. The problem is not the transport but at your ISP. Your ISP has to save the message and he has to pay for the bandwidth. Donate your ISP a big harddisk and i think he will loosen your disk-quota. Pay for the bandwidth and i think you will be able to get even very big messages. Hmmm... maybe there's still a problem with the ISP of the sender. The main point is: Traffic is expencive. And traffic is dangerous. If ISP allow even very big mails, than it will them cost much money and even worse they are more vulnerable to attacs (for example denial of service). Do you really want that? And last but not least: There are other ways to transfer the big data. And these ways are less dangerous cause they are designed for big data like files. But i think we are off-topic here now. -- Until the next mail..., Stefan.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 11:06:32AM +0200, Stefan Nobis wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hamish What is your point? I never claimed unsolicited attachments Hamish were acceptable, only that solicited ones of any size should Hamish work. Then pay for it. I do. The problem is not the transport but at your ISP. Your ISP has to save the message and he has to pay for the bandwidth. Donate your ISP a big harddisk and i think he will loosen your disk-quota. Pay for the bandwidth and i think you will be able to get even very big messages. I do pay for bandwidth. And I own all the disk space my email is stored on. And even if I didn't: disk is cheap. So please don't think I don't know the issues here. Charging per megabyte is a reality in Australia. Service providers do not usually pass it on directly to their dialup customers, but hide it in monthly and/or time charges. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 06:22:59AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 23:10:08 +1000 (EST), Jiri Baum wrote: Everyone knows that you shouldn't in general send files over about 50 KB (or at least everyone that's read RFC 1855). Everyone knows you shouldn't send large amounts of unsolicited information to people. Everyone doesn't know that, however. The uneducated people who start up on the Internet each day are the ones who don't know better and are demanding the capability even though there are solutions whivh have been available for over a decade. I think this thread is going in circles. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 08:46:04AM -0700, Gary Singleton wrote: No they don't! My wife routinely gets attachments in the 300-600K range from her friend back home. Yesterday, her friend sent a couple of files called something like easterbunny.exe both about 1.5M. Obviously this is a DOS|Windows executable file of no use to her anyway. Probably a stupid jumping bunny greeting card! The fact that these things are useless to you is seperate to their size. There are small, useless attachments just as much as their are large, useful ones. I don't think we should ignore large, useful attachments just because large, useless ones exist. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 02:45:33PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: Look at the Linux package sendfile and the preliminary draft of the RFC for the saft profocol. The way it works is this: I send a file to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Curious. The long-gone ACSnet (Australian Computer Society network) had a similar service, with binaries also named fetchfile and sendfile. One of the university systems I have access to still has the binaries installed, actually. I think the binaries came with Sun3, originally. A search for +acsnet +fetchfile on altavista will even tell you how to get the X11R5 sources off ACSnet. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:43:46 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: The fact that these things are useless to you is seperate to their size. There are small, useless attachments just as much as their are large, useful ones. I don't think we should ignore large, useful attachments just because large, useless ones exist. As the size of an attachment increases, the value of it decresses. There comes a point where one should not send the attachment, period, and use other means which have been available for years. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwiU1Xpf7K2LbpnFEQL8ewCbBfYmQx2PBw3qegDuF7Xgcbem/W0AoL5Y k1oAPPlTY3FFONKFkZJTgu5u =Ehpo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Ethics Violation in XFree86 (also: What do YOU lose with Linux)
-Original Message- From: Jesse Gilman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-user@lists.debian.org debian-user@lists.debian.org Date: Sunday, April 04, 1999 10:34 PM Subject: Ethics Violation in XFree86 lies about its capabilities? I refer to XFree86's pervasively well-documented feature of supporting multiheaded (multiple monitored) systems. I have just spent some $450 for a monitor and a card, Jesse, you can still salvage your investment (thanks to the diversity in the free software community, BTW). Just take a look at http://www.ggi-project.org . You can have even a TV wall powered by your Debian box if you want. What I've learned playing with Linux within past several years was that there is very rarely true to say that Linux does not have something (software, functionality, capability, application etc.). Unlike other (commercial) OSs which you can see only as a ready to ship products, on a store's shelf, in case of Linux we have to remember always that there is also third category of things (besides those 'Linux have' and 'Linux doesn't have): there are also things Linux is about to have. Do you need a piece of a new functionality? I can guarantee you that there is a project lurking somewhere in the Net which satisfies or will satisfy your expactations. George Kakol [EMAIL PROTECTED] CYMPAK, INC. tel (215) 826-9555 fax (215) 826-9558 3930 Nebraska St. Newportville, PA 19056
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
--- Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 02:45:33PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: Look at the Linux package sendfile and the preliminary draft of the RFC for the saft profocol. The way it works is this: I send a file to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Curious. The long-gone ACSnet (Australian Computer Society network) had a similar service, with binaries also named fetchfile and sendfile. One of the university systems I have access to still has the binaries installed, actually. I think the binaries came with Sun3, originally. A search for +acsnet +fetchfile on altavista will even tell you how to get the X11R5 sources off ACSnet. There is also a reference on the SAFT/sendfile site to Bitnet having this function so it apparently has roots. G.S. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
--- Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 08:46:04AM -0700, Gary Singleton wrote: No they don't! My wife routinely gets attachments in the 300-600K range from her friend back home. Yesterday, her friend sent a couple of files called something like easterbunny.exe both about 1.5M. Obviously this is a DOS|Windows executable file of no use to her anyway. Probably a stupid jumping bunny greeting card! The fact that these things are useless to you is seperate to their size. There are small, useless attachments just as much as their are large, useful ones. I don't think we should ignore large, useful attachments just because large, useless ones exist. Good point but downloading a large attachment, useful or otherwise, is extremely annoying on a slow dialup connection. Small attachments are much less annoying since my mail still comes down in a reasonable amount of time. I have a concern that if it becomes an acceptable practice amongst users with fast links that they will not consider those of us with simple dial up access when sending these massive attachments. I maintain that there are better methods of accomplishing file transfer than via e-mail and that large file transfer by email becoming acceptable is a bad thing. I don't anticipate sending any more comments on this subject; it's getting a little old and I don't expect that anyone will make a significant opinion change. It's also not really on topic for the debian-user list. Direct e-mail is welcome though (without large attachments) ;-). G.S. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On 3 Apr 1999, Stefan Nobis wrote: I get from time to time mails from friends and even from people i don't know with attachments some times greater than 1MB. And i'm always very angry about it, cause i do pay for my telphone connection (4 minutes costs me 12 german Pfennige, about 0,07US$). And none of these persons asked me, if i'm interested in the picture, large text, animation or the like. And never asked i someone of these to send me that thing. I talked to much other users and i often get excatly that complaint. And this has nothing to do with mailinglists. But if you are so happy about big emails, what about sending you the X11 sources? Without asking you about sending it. Will you be happy about that? The question is: What is big and what is too big? Everybody i can think of will get angry if i send him/her the X11 sources without being asked to do so. So X11 sources are clearly too big. What about a 50MB animation? What about a 5MB picture? What about a 100KB text? Do you get the point? To send emails bigger than about 40-80KB without being asked to do so and without asking the recipient is not very nice and i would call it an offence. Even though I have flat-rate telephone service, I also get upset with large emails. Since I use POP3 to retrieve my mail from my ISP, I found that using the limit parameter in my .fetchmailrc is a good way to keep those which are ridiculously long from being fetched. When I see that some have been kept back because of this I telnet into the ISP and check the mail in question. If I want it, I save the message into a file and ftp it; otherwise I delete the message. I have found this method quite useful. A few times I have gone over the ISP's quota on disk usage, but so far I haven't incurred any charges. Bob Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DM42nh http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sat, Apr 03, 1999 at 10:43:00AM +0200, Stefan Nobis wrote: But if you are so happy about big emails, what about sending you the X11 sources? Without asking you about sending it. Will you be happy about that? If it is solicited, just fine. What is your point? I never claimed unsolicited attachments were acceptable, only that solicited ones of any size should work. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Hello, Stefan Nobis: Do you get the point? To send emails bigger than about 40-80KB without being asked to do so and without asking the recipient is not very nice and i would call it an offence. Your point being? Everyone knows that you shouldn't in general send files over about 50 KB (or at least everyone that's read RFC 1855). Everyone knows you shouldn't send large amounts of unsolicited information to people. Everyone also knows that you should end each line with a carriage return, except people who write web-browser mail facilities. Jiri -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] We'll know the future has arrived when every mailer transparently quotes lines that begin with From , but no-one remembers why.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Steve Lamb: Ohh... You mean make it easy for idiot users to send large attachments through a medium that wasn't designed for it, shouldn't be used in that manner, and causes more problems than is needed with each step of the way. If I were to do it I'd have the email client teach them how to send a [EMAIL PROTECTED]@^%$# URL. Hamish Moffatt: Wrong solution. Users should not have to adapt to technology (within reason); the technology should allow users to send huge email attachments if they need to. Otherwise it should be fixed. The operative word being `need to'. It'd be a very good feature indeed if the e-mail client checked the size of the message and said, when appropriate, something along the lines of this is an unusually large message by Internet standards; are you sure? (y/N) and popped up a wizard for other ways of transferring the file. It's one thing to send Christmas gifs to people that are a couple of hundred bytes long; it's quite a different story when it's a huge, uncompressed bitmap which does exactly the same job. Sadly, in most e-mail clients either would be just a filename, with no immediate indication of how big it really is. Jiri -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] We'll know the future has arrived when every mailer transparently quotes lines that begin with From , but no-one remembers why.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 23:10:08 +1000 (EST), Jiri Baum wrote: Everyone knows that you shouldn't in general send files over about 50 KB (or at least everyone that's read RFC 1855). Everyone knows you shouldn't send large amounts of unsolicited information to people. Everyone doesn't know that, however. The uneducated people who start up on the Internet each day are the ones who don't know better and are demanding the capability even though there are solutions whivh have been available for over a decade. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwdns3pf7K2LbpnFEQI9BACcCM+BPwnO3JC/C+I+fxK2F3hEg3kAoI6y zcLgJRwLbB0vrKVa7AqHqYsm =kzNg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
--- Jiri Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Stefan Nobis: Do you get the point? To send emails bigger than about 40-80KB without being asked to do so and without asking the recipient is not very nice and i would call it an offence. Your point being? Everyone knows that you shouldn't in general send files over about 50 KB (or at least everyone that's read RFC 1855). Everyone knows you shouldn't send large amounts of unsolicited information to people. No they don't! My wife routinely gets attachments in the 300-600K range from her friend back home. Yesterday, her friend sent a couple of files called something like easterbunny.exe both about 1.5M. Obviously this is a DOS|Windows executable file of no use to her anyway. Probably a stupid jumping bunny greeting card! This friend has a cable modem so doesn't notice the time it would take to download a file that size. I conversely have a 33.6 dialup connection. If I were fetching that file from pop3 I would have been really upset. Luckily my wife uses a yahoo.com webmail account like I do so I was able to see the message while it sat on yahoo's server and delete it when I saw what kind of file it was without having to download it. So, from experience, everyone does not know and most don't care. IMO all mailers should be _required_ to limit attachment size and inform the user of a proper way to handle file transfer. As an aside, this person sends .doc files regularly too; luckily we're not susceptible to their evils. Regards, G.S. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Gary Singleton wrote: [..] As an aside, this person sends .doc files regularly too; luckily we're not susceptible to their evils. Don't get mad: get even. People that send me .doc files generally recieve a copy of the bash manpage or a big ole tarball. :-) Regards, G.S. -- . . | /-\ (-) /-\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no access to the other's machine, due to dynamic PPP and hostile ISPs, then? This method should be as easy and as transportable as POPmail, not involve other servers in any way save routing, be able to be used internationally, and ensure delivery to only the intended person. Give up? Well so do I. Solve this problem before you beef about how large attachments to email is evil. On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Gary Singleton wrote: --- Jiri Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Stefan Nobis: Do you get the point? To send emails bigger than about 40-80KB without being asked to do so and without asking the recipient is not very nice and i would call it an offence. Your point being? Everyone knows that you shouldn't in general send files over about 50 KB (or at least everyone that's read RFC 1855). Everyone knows you shouldn't send large amounts of unsolicited information to people. No they don't! My wife routinely gets attachments in the 300-600K range from her friend back home. Yesterday, her friend sent a couple of files called something like easterbunny.exe both about 1.5M. Obviously this is a DOS|Windows executable file of no use to her anyway. Probably a stupid jumping bunny greeting card! This friend has a cable modem so doesn't notice the time it would take to download a file that size. I conversely have a 33.6 dialup connection. If I were fetching that file from pop3 I would have been really upset. Luckily my wife uses a yahoo.com webmail account like I do so I was able to see the message while it sat on yahoo's server and delete it when I saw what kind of file it was without having to download it. So, from experience, everyone does not know and most don't care. IMO all mailers should be _required_ to limit attachment size and inform the user of a proper way to handle file transfer. As an aside, this person sends .doc files regularly too; luckily we're not susceptible to their evils. Regards, G.S. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
--- John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no access to the other's machine, due to dynamic PPP and hostile ISPs, then? Dynamic IP addresses can be taken care of using services like dyndns.org, ddns.org many others. My machine is online several hours a day using dyndns, I have the proftpd server running and can allow secure access via this or even using Apache. If I was to have such a hostile ISP I would switch to one of the many available in most areas of the world. Many ISPs however might be considered hostile by newbies for not allowing large attachments or charging for excess mail storage. This method should be as easy and as transportable as POPmail, not involve other servers in any way save routing, be able to be used internationally, and ensure delivery to only the intended person. Why, just to bend the rules to your definition of what the method should be? That's a little like saying I'm now using the internet, you must all bend to my definition of what e-mail should be. Give up? Well so do I. Solve this problem before you beef about how large attachments to email is evil. You can give up if you like, but I'll continue to take the position that e-mail is for message exchange not file exchange. There are established methods for secure file transfer by the way, e-mail is most definitely not the most secure method of transfer for any file that MUST not get into unfriendly hands. I will continue to beef about large attachments when they are sent to me and mine unrequested unwelcome. There are solutions available if you would look, perhaps they're not as easy and transportable but they are there, they are established and they are the proper way of handling large file transfer, secure or not. Regards, G.S. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 10:42:58 -0700, you wrote: Gary Singleton wrote: [..] As an aside, this person sends .doc files regularly too; luckily we're not susceptible to their evils. Don't get mad: get even. I think public needs to be educated on the issue but the marketing effort has been weak thus far. And I don't think the usual linux dogmatism is such a good idea. hmmm I think I have solution. Creat a buzz word like RFC 824 ( or whatever the number) Compliance or something like that and give the moniker to compliant linux mailer, list it as a feature etc. Generally make an issue out of it. Then some 2 bit twee so-called-journalist sees it and starts parroting it in maggotzines. All of sudden, every 2 bit luser, IT (blow-)heads, and CEOs (= Cheap Excretion Offspring) who read the said maggotsines seriously and will want to be compliant! So the first step is creating is a buzz word that sounds important/cool, and easy to memorize ( remember we are dealing with hoards of idiots). Any ideas?
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
The other problem that faces someone peeping over the hedge from M$ Windows land is ``where to find the applications''. There aren't so many magazines reviewing Linux apps as there are reviewing M$ apps. If you The magazines are paid for by the advertising. They will always concentrate on commercial products as that's where their bread and butter is (actually I normally buy computer magazines purely for the advertising!) It's something that schools seem very poor at putting across, that the world you see in the media is not the real world, but much more of a Truman show world. Shops are in a similar position; if you can legally duplicate your own Linux system, they will not give much shelf space to them, and will only have them in jewel cases, whereas there will be vast boxes to contain the CDs for the commercial products. walk into your local high street computer store you will probably see a few boxes of RedHat/Suse/..., and hundreds of boxes of M$ games, finance apps, music composition, ... This means that if you want these apps you need to know where to look and you really need an internet connection. Originally the internet bypassed the traditional advertising channels, but is now being swamped with the same sort of advertising, so even on the internet you have to know what you are looking for these days. On the othe hand, Linux is not set up to support dumb end users, so it is maybe better that there is a filter to eliminate those with little initiative. MS products are normally designed for minimal configuration by dumb users, and have a support organisation to cope with those who aren't satisfied with the defaults and can't work out how to configure the products for themselves. Open source software is now getting overwhelmed by end users expecting free consultancy as of right - most people are prepared to help those who have done their own research and failed, but not those who just want to be told how to make things work their way (often without clearly understanding what their way is).
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 12:41:20AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 1 Apr 1999 18:22:47 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: This is the proper thing to do since it then lets the other end decide not only *IF* they want the file, but *when* then want the file. If the sending user is on a dialup connection, how on earth can this work? Think about it. Your homework assignment, should you choose to accept it, Hamish, is Steve, your credibility would improve incredibly if you weren't so damn patronising. this. To figure out ways for people on dial-up connections to allow people to download files from an embedded URL. Your tools are the following: A local FTP client so the person can upload the file to one of the following An ISP/company/orignization run HTTP server. An ISP/company/originzation run FTP server. This is way ugly. as the standards and conventions surrounding them. One of which is the embedded HTTP defiled URL inside an email message sent and received by a combonation of SMTP and POP3/IMAP4rev2 to direct them to a proper FTP location. It would be better, IMHO, for the mail client at the receipient's end to be able to retrieve the message without any attachments, then download them from the server if needed. I don't like the idea of pointers to files, except where such files are ALREADY published. For internal corporate use, the sharing of files was, again, built into the systems of yesteryear. That would be what *GROUPS* are for on the system we all know and love, Unix. It is so a GROUP of people would have access to read and or change files so that said GROUP of people could cooperate on a project. And the relevance of this paragraph is? So, uh, Hamish, without being to provocotive for you... How, EXACTLY, would you take it to some upstart developer *demanding* changes in the way Debian does things even though there are clear procedures, conventions and techology to allow him to do exactly what he wants if he only took the time to learn it? I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with the issue of large email messages. Perhaps you could debate this with someone who does. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 10:41:47AM +0200, Stefan Nobis wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hamish reason); the technology should allow users to send huge email Hamish attachments if they need to. Otherwise it should be fixed. OK, but then the user should be prepared to pay for it! And often people in the USA seems to forget that there are other Some people forget that not all debian.org users are in the USA. I do pay for bandwidth here in .AU. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 03:31:34PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: Work Tech Support at an ISP for two weeks. You'll get sick of hearing from people who get 2-3Mb attachments from people which clogs their email until Admin gets in there to clear it out. When they hear what the attachment is, most times it is with exasperation that they will speak with the individual who sent it since they didn't want it. Happens about 4-5 times a week on a *small* ISP of only 7,000 customers. Meanwhile the converse, people complaining about large mails not getting through is maybe 4-5 a year. Then educate your users and have your users educate their friends not to send them large attachments that they don't really want. Change the technology to fix a people problem? Ugh. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 23:57:48 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Steve, your credibility would improve incredibly if you weren't so damn patronising. I'm only patronizing to those who deserve it. A local FTP client so the person can upload the file to one of the following An ISP/company/orignization run HTTP server. An ISP/company/originzation run FTP server. This is way ugly. How so? It is the proper way and the way it has been done for the past decade. It would be better, IMHO, for the mail client at the receipient's end to be able to retrieve the message without any attachments, then download them from the server if needed. This would be IMAP. However, since most unix programmers insist on doing mail in the utterly wrong fashion Unix IMAP implimentations, even UWashinton's own in Pine, is sorely lacking. I don't like the idea of pointers to files, except where such files are ALREADY published. But if the sender is the one publishing the file surely they know where it is. For internal corporate use, the sharing of files was, again, built into the systems of yesteryear. That would be what *GROUPS* are for on the system we all know and love, Unix. It is so a GROUP of people would have access to read and or change files so that said GROUP of people could cooperate on a project. And the relevance of this paragraph is? To point out that in a corporate intranet sending large messages via email is also a bad idea because such sharing is generally provided by the OS. Even Windows has basic sharing built into it. So, uh, Hamish, without being to provocotive for you... How, EXACTLY, would you take it to some upstart developer *demanding* changes in the way Debian does things even though there are clear procedures, conventions and techology to allow him to do exactly what he wants if he only took the time to learn it? I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with the issue of large email messages. Perhaps you could debate this with someone who does. It is called an analogy. I know that for backwater people, such as yourself, that is a hard concept to grasp, but it actually works quite well. See, I was drawing an analogy between the clueless people who want to do everything via email because they don't know how to use other protocols, the proper proceuders, history and conventions and the clueless people who want to do things inside Debian because they don't know about the proper procedures, history and conventions. IE, I have seen you vehemently defend how Debian, as a project, does certainly things against upstart newbie developers. Now, if we take Debian and replace it with Internet, does things with RFCs and upstart 'newbie' developers with newbie internet users we see that the analogy does, indeed fit. To put it another way, I was wondering why you were defending the clueless view when it comes to adherence to the standards, conventions and procedures of the Internet when you're one of the defenders of Debian's own standards, conventions and procedures? - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwYw6npf7K2LbpnFEQIIcwCeL2FIQ7X4NrsvflYm5qJEydzlS4oAn38T iWuEpiP7xtFo1iRjALSmH7lD =EXWg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 00:01:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Then educate your users and have your users educate their friends not to send them large attachments that they don't really want. Change the technology to fix a people problem? Ugh. Yes, that is exactly what we did. We didn't just say, Well, that's what people want, the technology should change to suit them. We educated them as to the proper way to do things. To send URLs for files they uploaded to our servers instead of the files themselves, for example. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwYxO3pf7K2LbpnFEQJ9bACgw7r9wD9Qd3pGMe0IiF2n+dx4ciIAn2LS i0s3HX6T+pSrvwU4yeuyBVzV =uJU5 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Folks, Once, there was a purpose to the thread given in the subject line, and I am most grateful to the many people who made relevant comments on my original query about the availability of user-desirable software for Linux. I shall collate these and pass them on; also, it would be seemly to summarise to the list in due course. Meanwhile, it seems to have branched out into other topics, such as the details of IRC and what to do about long email attachments, etc. I have no objection to that either, but would be obliged if such discussion could continue under different subject lines. Best wishes to all, Ted. E-Mail: (Ted Harding) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 03-Apr-99 Time: 16:04:38 -- XFMail --
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The problem of (huge) attachments or huge mails in general is, that the recipient often never asked to get it, but the sender sended it without being asked to do. Hamish In the case of mailing lists, I agree. In the case of other mail, Hamish this is not my experience at all. I get from time to time mails from friends and even from people i don't know with attachments some times greater than 1MB. And i'm always very angry about it, cause i do pay for my telphone connection (4 minutes costs me 12 german Pfennige, about 0,07US$). And none of these persons asked me, if i'm interested in the picture, large text, animation or the like. And never asked i someone of these to send me that thing. I talked to much other users and i often get excatly that complaint. And this has nothing to do with mailinglists. But if you are so happy about big emails, what about sending you the X11 sources? Without asking you about sending it. Will you be happy about that? The question is: What is big and what is too big? Everybody i can think of will get angry if i send him/her the X11 sources without being asked to do so. So X11 sources are clearly too big. What about a 50MB animation? What about a 5MB picture? What about a 100KB text? Do you get the point? To send emails bigger than about 40-80KB without being asked to do so and without asking the recipient is not very nice and i would call it an offence. -- Until the next mail..., Stefan.
Re: float matrices under MuPAD (was: What DO you lose with Linux ???)
Look up the DOMAIN of FRACTIONS--- DOM::FRACTIONS Mark Phillips wrote: I do my symbolic math with MuPAD 3.4 instead of MathCad 7.0 but I must be dilusional there also. On a total tangent --- have you worked out a way of getting matrices with floating point arithmetic under MuPAD? I haven't been able to find any in the documentation. Cheers, Mark. _/\___/~~\ /~~\_/~~\__/~~\__Mark_Phillips /~~\_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] /~~\HE___/~~\__/~~\APTAIN_ /~~\__/~~\ __ They told me I was gullible ... and I believed them!
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Hi, Wouldn't it be nice if POP mail boxes could be set to automatically bounce messages over a certain size as soon as they arrive at the ISP :-) I doubt I'd get so many large attchments if I could do that, actually it's only one person who regularly sends me large attachments and I'm going to start sending them back 10 times when he does it :-) Or would that also be a denial of service? On Sat, Apr 03, 1999 at 10:43:00AM +0200, Stefan Nobis wrote: But if you are so happy about big emails, what about sending you the X11 sources? Without asking you about sending it. Will you be happy about that? The question is: What is big and what is too big? Everybody i can think of will get angry if i send him/her the X11 sources without being asked to do so. So X11 sources are clearly too big. What about a 50MB animation? What about a 5MB picture? What about a 100KB text? Do you get the point? To send emails bigger than about 40-80KB without being asked to do so and without asking the recipient is not very nice and i would call it an offence. -- Andy Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] The path of my life is strewn with cow pats from the devil's own satanic herd!, Edmund Blackadder
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hamish Wrong solution. Users should not have to adapt to technology Hamish (within reason); the technology should allow users to send Hamish huge email attachments if they need to. Otherwise it should be Hamish fixed. One last point: If i drive a car, i have to stop at a red traffic light. Is a car bad technology? No piece of technology is able to get you rid of thinking. And your personal freedom ends exactly at the point where the freedom of others is cut down. The problem of (huge) attachments or huge mails in general is, that the recipient often never asked to get it, but the sender sended it without being asked to do. If i ask you to send me some big file than there is no technical problem to do so. But if you find a great picture, about 2MB and you think everyone has to see it and so you send it to one mailinglist or another, than there are no technical problems -- than your are the problem. -- Until the next mail..., Stefan.
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
See bug #274960375892 filed against 'car'. Stefan Nobis wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hamish Wrong solution. Users should not have to adapt to technology Hamish (within reason); the technology should allow users to send Hamish huge email attachments if they need to. Otherwise it should be Hamish fixed. One last point: If i drive a car, i have to stop at a red traffic light. Is a car bad technology? No piece of technology is able to get you rid of thinking. And your personal freedom ends exactly at the point where the freedom of others is cut down. The problem of (huge) attachments or huge mails in general is, that the recipient often never asked to get it, but the sender sended it without being asked to do. If i ask you to send me some big file than there is no technical problem to do so. But if you find a great picture, about 2MB and you think everyone has to see it and so you send it to one mailinglist or another, than there are no technical problems -- than your are the problem. -- Until the next mail..., Stefan. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
So Hewson makes some good points. Linus still isn't ready for the desktop, at least for the masses. But it will be Tomorrow. So stay tuned I agree -- a lot of his points, particularly about the lack of mainstream apps, are valid. I'd also like to see more hardware support for odd-ball and brand-new devices, and I'd certainly like to see a wider variety of apps. This can be solved. Even though we're flooded with generally positive, mainstream press coverage, the tactics that got us here still work. Nag hardware and software manufacturers for drivers and support from their products and politely remind them of their lost sales if they decline their support. That has worked and it'll still work. But I think the situation is changing, especially when it comes to software. The fact that Civilization III will be released for Windows and Linux at the same time is a milestone. The Civ series is hugely popular and states in a definite way that we're not on the back burner any more. Again, I agree -- tomorrow is going to be a really neat time; let's work to see that it gets here soon... :-) -- . | Celebrate the Linux WE'RE NEVER GOING OUT Randy | OF BUSINESS SALE by downloading an entire ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | operating system, apps, games, utilities, http://www.golgotha.net | and source code at http://www.debian.org
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 10:47:30PM +0200, Stefan Nobis wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hamish Wrong solution. Users should not have to adapt to technology Hamish (within reason); the technology should allow users to send Hamish huge email attachments if they need to. Otherwise it should be Hamish fixed. One last point: If i drive a car, i have to stop at a red traffic light. Is a car bad technology? No piece of technology is able to get you rid of thinking. And your personal freedom ends exactly at the point where the freedom of others is cut down. Sure, but I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with large emails. I thought the original comment was that in general people should not send large emails, but rather send URLs. This is in person to person email, not mailing lists. The problem of (huge) attachments or huge mails in general is, that the recipient often never asked to get it, but the sender sended it without being asked to do. In the case of mailing lists, I agree. In the case of other mail, this is not my experience at all. think everyone has to see it and so you send it to one mailinglist or another, than there are no technical problems -- than your are the problem. Who said anything about mailing lists? I didn't. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD. CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
-Original Message- From: Robert V. MacQuarrie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian-User-Mailing-List debian-user@lists.debian.org Cc: BENJAMIN FARRELL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 31 March 1999 08:00 Subject: Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ??? Heres a good point about linux, anyone found a good irc client for x (other than Bitchx in a E-Term :) that doesn't crash everytime you click (yagirc anyone). I still find for everyday use Win95/NT is better (quaking, ircing, browsing, ftping). OK well folks dont shoot me and no i dont use it often but.. mIRC runs just great from linux using the standard wine config. Yes this is the windowsXX irc client.. I simply type 'wine /dos/mirc/mirc32.exe' and it starts up. I run #Hottub on UnderNet and from time to time i help the other ops with their mIRC scripts. Wine also installed mirc for me on a very small windows/dos partition. This I found was great as I havent booted that windows partition in well over a year now :-) Heh, haven't tried mirc (don't really like) but almost managed to get xircon working using wine. I used tkirc alot last year and found it quite stable. I've been irc'ing since 91 or 92 and it's always been from the console or an xterm and it's how i continue to now :-) It's hard to get away from it after so long. Don't like havin' lots of windows all other the place (I like 1 window per channel), fiind bitchx very nice to use. As for browsing, downloading, uploading... I have always found that linux gave me a much better (more stable/reliable) connection via dialups. I've always noticed a difference in higher speeds and performance in linux. Don't know I got a cheapo modem, which has turned out to be a winmodem (YUCK), should be gettiing a decent modem soon thu. Quake.. Well it just rocks from linux. I've played from windows a few times and find it ran faster in linux. This is believe has to do with windows eating so much memory and not swapping as well as under linux. Software QuakeWorld does yes, glquakeworld nope, runs quite a bit slower (thats with the glibc version of everything). So I still use NT for quakin'(doesn't swap to much in NT if u kill of some services from control panel:). -Rob aka [EMAIL PROTECTED] :Ben Farrell
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 23:12:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I thought the original comment was that in general people should not send large emails, but rather send URLs. This is in person to person email, not mailing lists. And he did speak of that. Turn off your selective reading, Hamish. In the case of mailing lists, I agree. In the case of other mail, this is not my experience at all. Work Tech Support at an ISP for two weeks. You'll get sick of hearing from people who get 2-3Mb attachments from people which clogs their email until Admin gets in there to clear it out. When they hear what the attachment is, most times it is with exasperation that they will speak with the individual who sent it since they didn't want it. Happens about 4-5 times a week on a *small* ISP of only 7,000 customers. Meanwhile the converse, people complaining about large mails not getting through is maybe 4-5 a year. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwVTVnpf7K2LbpnFEQJHrgCgqgzd3bTfUuAnagEHaDHjB/ZUmzUAoIOn NKUH5tbVLYJCyfDMxzuqnWF5 =aeqi -END PGP SIGNATURE-
float matrices under MuPAD (was: What DO you lose with Linux ???)
I do my symbolic math with MuPAD 3.4 instead of MathCad 7.0 but I must be dilusional there also. On a total tangent --- have you worked out a way of getting matrices with floating point arithmetic under MuPAD? I haven't been able to find any in the documentation. Cheers, Mark. _/\___/~~\ /~~\_/~~\__/~~\__Mark_Phillips /~~\_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] /~~\HE___/~~\__/~~\APTAIN_ /~~\__/~~\ __ They told me I was gullible ... and I believed them!
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: The technology is there to send large files easily. Embed a URL into an email message and most email clients will automatically launch either the FTP client to get the file, or the browser which has FTP capabilities to get the file. This is the proper thing to do since it then lets the other end decide not only *IF* they want the file, but *when* then want the file. If the sending user is on a dialup connection, how on earth can this work? Think about it. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
Well, I don't really want to get involved in the large e-mail attachment debate but I saw a news item about this the other day. It's supposed to give you like 20M of internet storage - mostly for transfering files. I have no use for it but it _might_ work for something like that. Otherwise I guess you would have to have some kind of permanent ftp or even http storage. For internal intranet stuff the ftp thing would work great; most of the companies that I've worked for have limits on e-mail attachments since it causes so much traffic (or something like that). Regards, G.S. PS - My opinion though is that I _hate_ getting attachments - takes forever to download since I _am_ on a dialup account. --- Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: The technology is there to send large files easily. Embed a URL into an email message and most email clients will automatically launch either the FTP client to get the file, or the browser which has FTP capabilities to get the file. This is the proper thing to do since it then lets the other end decide not only *IF* they want the file, but *when* then want the file. If the sending user is on a dialup connection, how on earth can this work? Think about it. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 1 Apr 1999 18:22:47 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: This is the proper thing to do since it then lets the other end decide not only *IF* they want the file, but *when* then want the file. If the sending user is on a dialup connection, how on earth can this work? Think about it. Your homework assignment, should you choose to accept it, Hamish, is this. To figure out ways for people on dial-up connections to allow people to download files from an embedded URL. Your tools are the following: A local FTP client so the person can upload the file to one of the following An ISP/company/orignization run HTTP server. An ISP/company/originzation run FTP server. *Steve plays dramatic music and waits for Hamish to get a clue.* *Several hours later he gives up and stops the tape.* You see, Hamish, if a person can send out email they can also, 99% of the time, place any large files on an anonymous FTP server or on a web site somewhere so the embedded URL will work. This works with all corporations that I am aware of, most government sites, nearly all ISP and even for people, such as myself, who operate their own, albiet small connection. For the select few who are on networks managed by brain-dead IT people (read: NT advocates) who would not provide such services... TOUGH. That is a problem with their IT department and not something that the rest of the world should allow a Denial of Service attack. Before people should complain that they shouldn't have to do that they are WRONG. 100%, totally and utterly WRONG. FTP, which stands for *F*ile *T*ransfer *P*rotocol was designed, oddly enough, with the transfering of files in mind. It is a technology which is, IIRC, *older* than POP3, SMTP and IMAP4rev2, the current crop of mail protocols as well as HTTP in any incarnation. People should learn and use the appropriate protocols as well as the standards and conventions surrounding them. One of which is the embedded HTTP defiled URL inside an email message sent and received by a combonation of SMTP and POP3/IMAP4rev2 to direct them to a proper FTP location. The standards have adapted so people don't even need to know how to open an FTP client to retrieve the file. I think that is far enough, thank you, considering the alternative is *STILL* considered a Denial of Service, can still *BE* a DoS and is *NOT* supported by the standards of the day. That would be, uhm, RFC821 IIRC which says that only 64k is supported by the mail protocols. Anything beyond that is NOT. It isn't forbidden as I had previously mistakenly thought, but it is NOT supported. For internal corporate use, the sharing of files was, again, built into the systems of yesteryear. That would be what *GROUPS* are for on the system we all know and love, Unix. It is so a GROUP of people would have access to read and or change files so that said GROUP of people could cooperate on a project. It is because these people have not taken the MINIMAL time it takes to understand the standards, procedures, conventions and TECHNOLOGY given to them do they demand that the few that they have a minimialistic understand of be pervereted and DESTOYED for their use. And you defend that? So, uh, Hamish, without being to provocotive for you... How, EXACTLY, would you take it to some upstart developer *demanding* changes in the way Debian does things even though there are clear procedures, conventions and techology to allow him to do exactly what he wants if he only took the time to learn it? I'll let the archives bear my leading question to its conclusion. For you have taken the same defensive stance I take now on the whole issue of files through email in several discussions with me about Debian procedures and policy. Not to be too provocotive, mind you. Oh, and, yeah, upon hindsight, I was wrong on most of those. But hope this provides a little food for thought for you. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc iQA/AwUBNwMxMHpf7K2LbpnFEQKANQCg6uLL6m881yWFpRN4y6dIyAKsUgYAn1KG JHztm3ZC+OOUGWwMCR6a9KA7 =zVNR -END PGP SIGNATURE-
