EMAIL != FTP
mitch at netside.net
Fri May 25 10:32:48 UTC 2001
On Fri, 25 May 2001, John Fraizer wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > From: Steve Sobol [mailto:sjsobol at NorthShoreTechnologies.net]
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 2:51 PM
> > >
> > > Shawn McMahon wrote:
> > >
> > > > > TCP rate-limiting on outbound traffic to *:25 would also
> > > be extremely
> > > > > effective, particularly on unclassified customer traffic,
> > > and without the
> > > > > heavy-handed nature of denying all dial-up traffic.
> > > Rate-limiting doesn't
> > > > > interfere with low-volume legitimate mail, but it really
> > > cramps spam.
> > > >
> > > > It interferes heavily with transmission of large files via
> > > email, though,
> > > > and this *IS* a valid use of service.
> > >
> > > The transmission of large files is not a valid use of email.
> > Is too... I send large documents regularly, via email. I just sent a 125
> > page word doc, with about 20 embedded Visio drawings and a bunch of embedded
> > Excel spreadsheets. It was huge. Most of the recipients are on dialups with
> > Win98. How else do you expect me to get it to them ... FTP? Most of them are
> > NOT computer jocks.
> How about this Roeland:
> You send them an email that says:
> Because email is NOT intended to be a file transfer protocol and beyond
> that fact that I know you're on a low-bandwidth dialup account, please
> find below a link to the document I said I would send to you. On a 56K
> dialup connection, this will most likely take about 10 minutes for you to
> download. There are two links. One will retrieve the document via FTP and
> one will retrieve the document via HTTP. The HTTP link will most likely
> provide a faster download under most circumstances. I provided both to
> afford you the opportunity to choose when and how you retrieve the
> Very simple concept. It not only uses the right tool for the job but,
> also affords them the opportunity to retrieve the document when it is
> CONVENIENT for them. If I were a dialup user and somone sent me some HUGE
> attachment like that, I would consider it very rude.
> Note to all salesdroids: If you want to be sure that I will NEVER do
> business with you, send me an email attachment.
> John Fraizer
> EnterZone, Inc
If you were a dial-up user, chances are you wouldn't be able to do that.
A few simple reasons come to mind: first, you wouldn't have any or not
enough disk space on your system account (limited by quota) to store the
file. Second, an average user probably wouldn't have the skill. Third, a
.zip file will usually display as funny characters on a web browser -
that's why ftp is needed. Fourth, you probably wouldn't have shell access
and ftp space from your provider with a regular account. Fifth, assuming
you would have all the toys, you would have to spend yourself the time to
first upload the file, so that another may retrieve it. Sixth, if your
file was a sensitive document, others would have public access to it, etc.
So what's a regular user to do? Email it! Hence the legitimate use of
email for transmission of large files. Most ISPs know that if they start
limiting this privilege, users will migrate to someone that allows it.
More information about the NANOG