Re: What DO you lose with Linux ???
--- John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Gary Singleton wrote:
>
> > --- John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> 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 "easy and transportable"
> but
> > they are there, they are established and they are
> the
> > proper way of handling large file transfer, secure
> or
> > not.
>
> So what you're trying to say is that you really
> don't need to provide
> citation when asked--I guess they really are secure
> methods if their
> existence isn't able to be promulgated. I asked a
> question, and all I got
> from you is a load of unfinished descriptions and
> glittering generalities.
> When you can come up with some concrete examples,
> please continue, until
> then please crawl back under the rock you came from.
<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 really enjoyed your last sentence, it's nice to see
that your rude, inconsiderate behavior doesn't stop
with sending large e-mail attachments. How about some
name calling next time? <BG>
G.S.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Reply to: