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 new protocol couldn't be designed
> > that had the desirable addressing features of email, and the efficiency
> > of FTP. But that would be a new protocol...
>
> No, it would be an old protocol. See RFC1440, from July 1993.
>
> Is there sufficient interest to create a working group to overhaul RFC1440
> into something more usable in today's Internet?
I find saft (simple asynchronous file transfer protocol) to work well for
me. there's a reference implementation for unix and description at
http://www.belwue.de/aktivitaeten/projekte/saft/index-us.html
I think I've seen an old winnt implementation around somewhere, but I
didn't get it to work.
The reference implementation does have some access-control features, but
they could use a little work (currently allows wildcarded 'don't receive
from' lists, could use being able to instead have an allow list).
-tl
......
who's watching your watchmen?
EF D8 33 68 B3 E3 E9 D2 C1 3E 51 22 8A AA 7B 98
