<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [JDEV] File transfers</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><DEFANGED_META
CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii" HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type"><DEFANGED_META
CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12" NAME="Generator">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The jabber server could simply have a config option
for "max transfer size," which ,when set to zero, disables all file transfers.
Clients are notified of the file-transfer capabilities of the server by the
server. You could even take it one step further and allow/disallow
file-transfter use per account ID and/or groups. Other config options which
would be useful are "cache time" and "max cache size" -- if cache time and/or
size are zero, then if the server cannot stream the data directly to the
recipient(s), it informs the client that the recipient isn't accepting
transfers. You could even limit the number of transfers/person/day,
etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Leave it up to the clients to B64 encode/decode the
transfer. The server doesn't have to care, which will reduce processing load.
The "max size" parameters will be for the encoded versions, which is what server
operators care about, because it's what they pay for.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Server-supported transfers would be a nice config
option, esp. for behind-the-firewall and small-number-of-users
servers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=FGallo@westernasset.com href="mailto:FGallo@westernasset.com">Gallo,
Felix S.</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=jdev@jabber.org
href="mailto:'jdev@jabber.org'">'jdev@jabber.org'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:54
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [JDEV] File transfers</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Mike writes:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Firstly, there is no
inherent problem with sending moderately </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> large
files through a software server. Sendmail does it all </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>> day, every day, on a massive scale, without relying on
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> client-to-client connections.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>However, most mail is accessed through POP, IMAP, or
Exchange,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>which are definitely client-to-client
connections -- for the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>simple reason that sendmail
doesn't scale very well. For</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>every byte send to
a sendmail server, two bytes traverse the</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>network. Most unfortunately, those two bytes always
involve</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>just the one sendmail server and its attached
network.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>What positives do you get for having the sendmail server
involved</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>in a large file transaction between two
parties? You get a</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>guarantee of delivery and no
need for continued storage on the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>sending party's side
(since the file 'moves' to the sendmail server).</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>If
you're sending the file to multiple users at once, you get less</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>traffic on your local network (the server takes the
load).</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>You also get an opportunity to mediate the file
somehow (e.g.,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>virus checking it as a service,
converting it from aac into mp3,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>storing it for later
delivery to other users..)</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>What positives do you get for not having the sendmail server
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>involved? The network on the sendmail server
sees 0X load</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>rather than 2X load; the latency is
lower; the sendmail server</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>has no storage requirement;
and you have arguably fewer points</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>of failure.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT size=2>Pragmatically, taking the load off the server is more
valuable</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>in the normal case than replicating
HTTP/FTP/SMTP/FXP yet again.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>The fact that 'SMTP does
it' is not a great rationale for forcing</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>all the
jabber servers to pay 2X bandwidth costs for file transfers</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>between their users.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>F.</FONT> </P><CODE><FONT
size=3><BR><BR>**********************************************************************<BR>E-mail
sent through the Internet is not secure. Western Asset therefore<BR>recommends
that you do not send any confidential or sensitive information to<BR>us via
electronic mail, including social security numbers, account numbers,<BR>or
personal identification numbers. Delivery, and or timely delivery
of<BR>Internet mail is not guaranteed. Western Asset therefore recommends
that<BR>you do not send time sensitive or action-oriented messages to us
via<BR>electronic
mail.<BR>**********************************************************************<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></CODE></BODY></HTML>