nanog mailing list archives
Re: EMAIL != FTP
From: Jan P Tietze <jptietze () netheads de>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 15:31:12 +0200
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
Current thread:
- Re: EMAIL != FTP, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: EMAIL != FTP Valdis . Kletnieks (May 26)