home bbs files messages ]

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