nanog mailing list archives
Re: EMAIL != FTP
From: Craig Partridge <craig () aland bbn com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 08:27:19 -0400
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. 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 true for HTTP though I've not looked. The one major difference, these days, is that EMAIL is often relayed over multiple SMTP hops while FTP and HTTP are not. So there are some queueing issues. Craig (who not uncommonly gets 50 MB emails)
Current thread:
- Re: EMAIL != FTP, (continued)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Steve Sobol (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Albert Meyer (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Greg A. Woods (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Albert Meyer (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Steve Sobol (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Jim Mercer (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Scott Francis (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)
- Re: cleaning up MIME external-body attachments.... Greg A. Woods (May 26)
- Re: cleaning up MIME external-body attachments.... Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Craig Partridge (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Jan P Tietze (May 25)
- RE: EMAIL != FTP Robert Blayzor (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Craig Partridge (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Jim Mercer (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Alexei Roudnev (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Steve Sobol (May 25)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Mitch Halmu (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Mitch Halmu (May 26)