"Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
There is a patent in the database for the use of a laser pointer to
entertain a cat by having it chase the spot on the floor. I'm not
making this up.
Wait, I found a better one: a patent on "A Pet Exerciser and Toy Device consisting
of an Attractor made of brightly
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:42:04 PST, Kent Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
SMTP is not a file transport protocol, and it will always be less
efficient at transporting files than a protocol that is designed for
that purpose. Not to say that some
excellent news! Thanks.
d/
At 11:03 AM 12/18/1999 , Scott Bradner wrote:
To revisit a theme I raised back in the summer, this need to be able to
prove prior art is the reason I believe we need to preserve Internet
Drafts,
the IESG has asked the IETF Secretariat to do this and the old IDs
At 10:49 17.12.99 -0500, Dick St.Peters wrote:
Communication has the unusual property of having two users, and sender
and recipient don't always agree on what they want. I for one think
it is *not* the ietf's job to continue making it ever easier to send
what recipients do not want. The
Hi Veron,
Vernon Schryver wrote:
(I'm not replying to the list because you didn't)
Sorry - I answer back to the list
I will not try to pick out all the points where we do not agree, but
just say than it is not always possible to create a visible metaphor for
a virtual function. I
At 00.45 -0500 99-12-12, Dick St.Peters wrote:
I wouldn't bet on that. Sometime in the mid 80's I wrote a pair of
scripts to automate breaking a file into roughly 50 KB pieces, sending
them by UUCP mail, and reassembling them. GE Medical Systems used it
to ship around MRI images.
This
Customers are generally much happier when you give them what they ask for
instead of forcing them to use something else; if people want to be able to
mail full DVDs to each other, it's our job to determine how to make that
technically feasible and (hopefully) efficient.
Communication has the
: Email messages: How large is too large?
Hi Veron,
Vernon Schryver wrote:
(I'm not replying to the list because you didn't)
Sorry - I answer back to the list
I will not try to pick out all the points where we do not agree, but
just say than it is not always possible to create a visible
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
No, it would be an old protocol. See RFC1440, from July 1993.
Is there sufficient interest to create a working group to overhaul RFC1440
into something more usable in today's Internet?
In today's internet, filled with mentally challenged hacker d00ds, who
No, it would be an old protocol. See RFC1440, from July 1993.
Is there sufficient interest to create a working group to overhaul RFC1440
into something more usable in today's Internet?
People using SMTP for large file transfer has been a pet peeve of mine for
several years, having been
17, 1999 10:50 AM
To: Stephen Sprunk
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Email messages: How large is too large?
Customers are generally much happier when you give them what they ask for
instead of forcing them to use something else; if people want to be able
to
mail full DVDs to each other, it's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there sufficient interest to create a working group to overhaul RFC1440
into something more usable in today's Internet?
It might not take much work--this might actually be a case where HTTP is
appropriate, since you're sending the same sorts of entities that might
messages: How large is too large?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
No, it would be an old protocol. See RFC1440, from July 1993.
Is there sufficient interest to create a working group to overhaul RFC1440
into something more usable in today's Internet?
In today's internet, filled with mentally
From: "Mason, Shane" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But I can do that already, by sending an email with a huge attachment direct
to your SMTP server that has a destination with a name and IP, but no
physical site. It will stay at your site until your SMTP timeout kicks in.
What is a "physical site"?
At 03:12 PM 12/17/1999 -0500, John Stracke wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there sufficient interest to create a working group to overhaul RFC1440
into something more usable in today's Internet?
It might not take much work--this might actually be a case where HTTP is
appropriate, since
"Mason, Shane" wrote:
But I can do that already, by sending an email with a huge attachment direct
to your SMTP server that has a destination with a name and IP, but no
physical site. It will stay at your site until your SMTP timeout kicks in.
That's one reason almost nobody runs open
the royal society is going to publish papers from this meeting - the
talks are being made avaiallbe on a best effort (NOT distributed to
people, but made availabe) which seems to me to quite a different
thing from unsolicted unreadable content
if you care, the draft paper and talk i gave are
-Original Message-
From: J. Noel Chiappa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 3:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Email messages: How large is too large?
From: Jon Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sending an email
/ 800-901-6078
C I S C O S Y S T E M S Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Danny Iacovou
To: J. Noel Chiappa ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 16:57
Subject: RE: Email messages: How large is too large?
Speaking of University campuses
What's the SOLUTION?
:
* ^Subject:.*How large is too large
/dev/null
procmail is your friend
randy
, December 16, 1999 3:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Email messages: How large is too large?
What's the SOLUTION??? Watching this thread is like watching a dog chase
it's tail. The distinguished left hand keeps saying that "E-mail wasn't
designed to do this." The down and d
al Message-
From: Mason, Shane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 3:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Email messages: How large is too large?
What's the SOLUTION??? Watching this thread is like watching a dog
chase
it's tail. The distinguished left
What's the SOLUTION?
:
* ^Subject:.*How large is too large
/dev/null
procmail is your friend
randy
Great solution for the last mile. Shame it makes some people pay to import
what they will throw away...
-George
--
George Michaelson | DSTC Pty Ltd
Fred Marshall wrote:
I continue to support the ideas:
4) Hard drives are quite cheap. Populations are rising rapidly. File
sizes have reason to be going up as well. Pipes are getting fatter. Right
now storage spaces are limiting and pipes/access (therefore transport times)
are
einstein might have said that matter and energy are interchangeable
but space and time are not
i can buy a 10Gig disk for a lot less than the average per diem pay in
US/EU
there's too MANY emails, not too MUCH of each
j.
o Internet driving licences may seem a bit naff, but there
is value in requiring people to migrate to a power-user
status by at least trying to teach them that there are
consequences to using tools in distributed communications
Just to point out that there appears
In message Pine.SOL.3.96.991215093330.5839F-10@mailer1, Jon Knight typed:
o Internet driving licences may seem a bit naff, but there
is value in requiring people to migrate to a power-user
status by at least trying to teach them that there are
consequences to using
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Valdis.Kletnieks@vt
.edu typed:
--==_Exmh_-374731876P
a) Do you have an incoming anonymous FTP drop *of your own*?
b) Are you willing to set up incoming FTP for one file?
c) What if you're one of the millions of people who use an ISP that
doesn't provide
] From: "Martin Djernaes" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] I know that the internet were not build for "general use", but it is the
] life of the net today, at it should be the goal for the people
] implementing it (us?). Let us get away from the idea that it should
] always be used the way we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, for most of the Internet users of today, the availability
of long-term stable externally-reachable storage is low enough that you
usually end up dereferencing a null pointer.
It doesn't have to be that way. We'll set up an anonymous FTP site
for
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Sp
encer Dawkins" writes:
I'm thinking that at least some part of the loss-of-transparency issues
might get more attention from the nice people who want to put application
gateways between themselves and the rest of the world if you point out that
this has led
Title: RE: Email messages: How large is too large?
Steve,
You said this better than I could have - loss of transparency is making it harder for application designers to make correct use of the Internet easier for users, and it wasn't THAT easy to make correct use easy in the FIRST place
As I recall, the reason that Mime was developed was precisely to allow
email to substitute for many file transfers. Before Mime, it was
always a bit of an annoyance/embarassment that email could not be used
in place of FTP for binary files.
Actually, the motivation for developing MIME was
At 01:11 PM 12/14/1999 , Ned Freed wrote:
But I guess we forgot to take the next big step, redesigning email to
properly scale to handling arbitrarily large messages in a relatively
graceful manner when necessary.
I remain to be convinced that problems handling large messages have
much if
I remain to be convinced that problems handling large messages have
much if anything to do with the modern ESMTP protocol. It seems to me
that it has a lot more to do with implementation and deployment.
Amen!
A few observations:
Many places depend on mailers which operate as 'parallel
35 matches
Mail list logo
