Subject: RE: [Asrg] Ban the bounce; improved challenge-response systems

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 19:10:31 -0700

> > ...
> > How many protocols do we have that - at the application 
> layer - send 
> > back  the whole request when things don't work out? Imagine if you 
> > were to abort an FTP upload and got a copy of the whole 
> file back "so 
> > you know which one failed"!
> 
> If you used FTP as much as you use mail and if your FTP commands
> could take 5 days to fail, that would not sound so silly.
> In other words, I suspect you never used UUCP for copying files.

Thats the difference between you and me. I see a piece of junk
and I say, that is an obsolete piece of junk.

I used ftp for a couple of months, then I decided that the ftp
client was broken and fixed it. First you reset the stupid default
to ascii transfer from the days of EBSDIC. Then you hide all the
telnet command line layer from the user and the result is a 
single command line entry called icopy.

You could use icopy in a batch file, just like the real DECNET
commands could be used.

Now ftp is bad enough, but UUCP? The only files people used to
download by mail were the sort that they now get unsolicited 
by mail and this group is about stopping.

Perhaps someone would like to argue the reason why any protocol
ASRG develops should work over punchcards and paper tapes. 

	Phill
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:23:29 -0400

>by mail and this group is about stopping.

There seems to be a tendency here to not read anything anymore, but 
to look for keywords and respond to them.

Vernon did not once advocate UUCP.  He simply pointed out that using 
FTP as a justification for not responding with full bounce info in 
email was clearly an option suggested by someone who didn't 
understand the difference between a connected protocol and a 
disconnected protocol.  A better choice would be to compare email to 
UUCP.  Dead on.

And then yesterday I make a crack about newsgroups, and people start 
critiquing Usenet--like that had anything to do with anything.

Can we *please* stick to the subject of these messages, and not the 
subjects we make up out of thin air?
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Jim Youll <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:34:06 -0400

>disconnected protocol.  A better choice would be to compare email to 

Get to know me before you determine what I do and don't know.
thanks, Kee.

---

From: Jim Youll <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:02:54 -0400

At 12:23 -0400 4/9/03, Kee Hinckley wrote:
>  A better choice would be to compare email to UUCP.

Let me just restate the complaint in terms that will rise to your 
level of pedantry, and then we can be done with it.

	Imagine if you were to upload a file _by any means_
	and got a copy of the whole file back "so you know
	which one failed" if it didn't work.

It's nonsense. The nodes that could "most need" to have the file 
returned are the weakest, least capable, can't store a damn thing 
nodes... which are also certainly the the points that have the 
narrowest channels in and out and the most likely to rely on 
protocols that can use intermittent links. The "cure" does not cure 
anything. Why would you push 90% of a failed file xfer backward over 
a packet radio link when you know the source has the file? Why would 
you push an e-mail message back when every client keeps an outbox?

You're all nazis. The ghost of Hitler made me do it. Can this thread 
end now or do I need to get find a silver stake?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 16:00:26 -0400

At 1:34 PM -0400 4/9/03, Jim Youll wrote:
>>Vernon did not once advocate UUCP.  He simply pointed out that 
>>using FTP as a justification for not responding with full bounce 
>>info in email was clearly an option suggested by someone who didn't 
>>disconnected protocol.  A better choice would be to compare email 
>>to UUCP.  Dead on.
>

Sure.  But what does that have to do with the complaint I directed at Phill?
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society