nanog mailing list archives
RE: EMAIL != FTP
From: "Robert Blayzor" <rblayzor () thebiz net>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:20:28 -0400
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.
I think you missed the fact that sending files via SMTP is incredibly inefficient. Any files sent via SMTP have to be encoded which can balloon the transmission up 30%+. That is an incredible waste of bandwidth on a 10MB file. Also, remember that SMTP usually relays, so the message is bounced between 1-8 servers along the way (or more), more bandwidth and resources wasted. *sigh* -- Robert Blayzor IP Network Engineer, BOFH BiznessOnline.com, Inc. rblayzor () thebiz net noc () thebiz net http://www.thebiz.net/ FreeBSD, Putting the 'Operating' back into OS! -- http://www.freebsd.org/
Current thread:
- Re: EMAIL != FTP, (continued)
- 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)