Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.protocols.tcp-ip    |    TCP and IP network protocols.    |    14,669 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 14,576 of 14,669    |
|    KP KP to Michael Padlipsky    |
|    Re: Tcp/Ip vs a store & forward network    |
|    02 Aug 22 07:18:20    |
      From: jungletrain@outlook.com              On Tuesday, April 14, 1987 at 11:44:06 AM UTC-7, Michael Padlipsky wrote:       > Just got around to reading the Subj: msg and hope it's not too late       > to point out that the desired effect (of passwordless "spoolers" via       > FTP) can be achieved straightforwardly given the mechanisms of a       > couple of my old (one ancient, actually) RFCs. Since it would take       > longer for me to find the numbers than to summarize, here goes:       > Back in ~'73, when mail was done via FTP, we had a problem with       > not having all Hosts able/willing to let given users in without       > passwords (indeed, some Hosts didn't even demand USER commands,       > muchless PASSs, but others demanded both). In a little thing       > called "What Is 'Free'?" (RFC # in the 500s, I expect), I suggested       > that any mail senders which encountered the Login Expected FTP       > code should use USER NETML and PASS NETML (and any mail receivers       > on systems that demanded logins should duly cause the appropriate       > accounts to be created). Seems to me we could do the same thing       > with "NETSPL" for the passwordless aspect of the current thing.       > Then a year or two ago (and this one actually is in the latest       > version of the FTP RFC), for some obscure reason I decided there       > ought to be an FTP command for STOring under a Unique name for use       > in all sorts of "pool" directory cases, so if I remembered that       > one's number and the other one's I could have just said Why not use       > the RFC 5xx and 9xx tricks? (By the way, the 5xx trick was duly       > implemented and worked for years [even if nobody other than       > Multics did the receiving end part].)       > If my current state of seemingly eternal jetlag hasn't caused me       > to miss the point, I think that should do it. Do I need to       > write another RFC to forget the number of?       > cheers, map       > P.S. Lest anybody misunderstand, I was at Multics at the time and       > invented the fictious mail receiver thing in self defense; cf. pp.       > 84-5 of The Book.       > -------       Tha'ts awesome.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca