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, ivan@vianet.net.au 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.
> >
>
> dftp....sounds 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 debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
>
Reply to: