EMAIL != FTP

Fri May 25 13:31:12 UTC 2001

Craig Partridge wrote:

> Part of this discussion is just plain bizarre.
>
> It is worth remembering that SMTP is, in most respects, simply FTP reworked.
> In many ways, HTTP is FTP badly reinvented.

I disagree - HTTP is more firewall/NAT friendly, and has no active/passive mode.

> But for a little extra SMTP handshaking at the start, there is no efficiency
> difference in transfer rate between SMTP and FTP.  Probably the same is

No, there is overhead in encoding of binary data for transmission by SMTP.

> true for HTTP though I've not looked.

Jan