No, SMTP does not transfer files. SMTP transfers plain text messages. MIME can be used to encode a file in such a way that it can be embedded into an SMTP message. SMTP is not a file transfer protocol.
The really odd thing is that many kids these days will happily pay £2-3 for a 30 second clip of a song for a ring tone, but think that £1 for a song, or £10 for a CD of 8-15 songs is a rip-off. Can't work that one out myself.
Most UK fuel consumption quotes are for the combined figure that takes a mix of motorway cruising and town driving. For instance, my old car did about 38mpg driving to work (part A road = 70mph, part crawling through town), but could achieve about 58mpg when doing long distance (All motorway and A road). These are real figures measured by mileage divided by actual fuel consumed, not manufacturers figures.
The thing you, and many others, are missing here is a proper back-up cycle. Yes, mirroring your data to another server is (like RAID) a good way to safeguard your current data. It does nothing to provide the ability to get a file from the day before, the week before, the year before etc. This is where tape backup excels, with a proper hierachial backup strategy.
Both my TV and my (cheap) VCR can handle both NTSC and PAL - the VCR will translate NTSC to PAL (I'm in the UK) and the TV will accept an NTSC input, so I could plug in an NTSC device.
Unfortunately SMTP as a protocol is not designed to operate in this way. Email works on the basis of a store and forward system, such that your email may flow through a number of servers to get to its destination. Each of these servers may accept the email without knowing whether the final destination is valid, and then become responsible for forwarding it on to the next hop. There is no direct connection from your computer to the final destination, and no way of signalling the transit of the email, other than sending an email back to you. This used to be done by default in the way of "bounce messages" "Non delivery reports" and "timeout messages". Because of the volume of spam using forged sender information (as sender information is not authenticated in standard SMTP), these are usually turned off, as otherwise you suddenly find your email inundated with thousands of bounces and NDR's etc when someone uses your domain to spam from.
"Use a new protocol then" is usually the response here, but that is unlikely given the number of existing, working, SMTP installation. If spam is defeated, however, maybe you will find NDR's etc being used again. So, in summary, SMTP already does this, but it's disabled because of people misusing a system that was designed when people were trusted not to abuse it.
Who is this "you" that is being referred to? It certainly isn't me . I'm a "mere user." I don't have to maintain the multitudes of machines running my applications. Somebody else does.
And, as a user, your main concern is whether or not the applications are available. So, it doesn't really matter whether it is you, or not, what matters is that the maintenance is easier. Also, if the apps are centralised, they are running from server class hardware, not that £299 Dell that the boss saw an offer for in the back of a magazine. It's the same reason your data is generally safer on the server than on your desktop - better hardware and a managed backup policy etc.
What else would Britian be a part of? I've never understood why the British seem to think themselves completely seperate from Europe.
Well, consider the fact that "Europe" might refer to "Mainland Europe", which we aren't part of, or "the continent of Europe", which we are, or the "European Community/European Union" which we are also part of. It might be used to refer to the Franco/German ideal of a "United States of Europe" which we don't want much to do with. It could also be used to refer to the economic "European Monetary Union" which we aren't part of.
If Ford buy a kernel from Montavista, they don't care where it came from, and they expect Montavista to have QAed their product. The fact that Montavista didn't write it isn't Ford's problem. Automotive suppliers like Delco aggregate components from sub-suppliers too, but they accept liability (in the first instance) if their aggregate goes wrong: they can't turn around and say to Ford "oh, we didn't make these capacitors, talk to our supplier CapCo". Delco might, at some later point, turn around and sue CapCo, but Ford has no relationship with CapCo, no responsibity for QAing CapCo's capacitors, and no desire to go chasing CapCo when things go wrong.
But if Ford are asssembling circuits from the capacitors, it is their responsbility to ensure the circuit works. MontaVista won't supply Ford with a working engine control module (i.e. hardware with a custom software component). Either Ford produce one, or they get another supplier (who might then be MVs customer). In either case, the responsibility for the module is not MVs. Bear in mind that MV supply software, and in most cases software is supplied without warranty no matter who is supplying it (yes, I am aware there are exceptions, but in the normal business world this is the case). This in itself makes it very different from a company that supplies manufactured products.
Auto companies get sued all the time (rightly and wrongly), as to their major suppliers (Delco, Denso, Bosch etc.). If a supplier's part is defective, a class action against the supplier may result. If the supplier is big like Delco they'll be in a position to defend against that action, and have enough money and insurance to survive if they lose the action.
But linux comes largely from little guys like Montevista. Even if they do accept liability, they're still too small to survive a huge automotive-defect class action. So GM or Toyota or BMW would be left holding the bill. The major automotive electronics suppliers will accept liability, and are big enough to be credible partners in a litigative society. Microsoft sells (very limited) automotive electronics products, and are again credible (from a business perspective).
Firstly, it's Montavista. Note the 'a' in the middle.
Secondly, why would they accept liability - they are just providing a development kit and support. The hardware design and manufacture and the programming of the system is down to the customer - if there is a defect in these it's got nothing to do with Montavista. If you run into a bug in the kernel, well that is what your QA department is for. Auto suppliers are liable for errors in parts they manufacture, not for how you use them.
No, he got a new Mac Mini because there is a statutory minimum 12 month warranty within the UK, plus a further, non-specific "fitness for purpose" warranty, that means goods should last a reasonable amount of time. For instance if your washing machine or fridge breaks down within 3 years, you are within your rights to insist on repair or replacement even outside this warranty, as if it doesn't last this long, it was not fit for sale.
Re:By my calculation ...
on
ILM's Datacenter
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How long would it take you to copy the data for transit (you're not suggesting you transport your master copy, surely), and then restore it?
I think it is you who need to fix your broken MTA:
"An SMTP server MAY verify that the domain name parameter in the EHLO
command actually corresponds to the IP address of the client.
However, the server MUST NOT refuse to accept a message for this
reason if the verification fails: the information about verification
failure is for logging and tracing only."
Note the "MUST NOT". Rejecting an email because the host has no reverse DNS or incorrect host name is prohibited by RFC2821
you are trying to tell me that software is limiting a fighter so it can drop at subsonic, but not at supersonic speeds????? I am not an engineer, but somehow I doubt that.
Maybe the targetting algorithms cannot calculate the correct path for a supersonic launch. Maybe the ordinance has been upgraded for supersonic launch and this has lead to different parameters and so the software needs updating. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Funnily enough, sometimes, yes. Although it's not "American" because the steering wheel is on the wrong side of the car. Those cunning French and Germans etc. do the same. Plenty of Porsche's over here like that.
You are shortsighted. What if they don't have internet or browser, or use DOS? It doesn't mean they're not interested in your product.
Yes, and if your web-site is your only method of sales, this is true. Which is why most businesses also sell over the phone etc.
What if they don't have computer? And what, you market via web sites?! How shortsighted.
Ditto.
What if they are aliens and don't understand human languages. There is STILL some possibility they can be interested in your product! Prove me wrong! Can you? No you can't.
This is an assumption many businesses make - the defacto language of computing and the Internet is English. If you truly want to reach internationally, you need to support other languages. International companies do it.
Oh wait we live in a real world, where it's just enough to have a reasonable threshold when targeting potential customers, rather than speculating on random assumptions
The problem with your argument is that many of these assumptions are made because there is a very real and significant cost for arranging your business around them, however this is not true for supporting multiple browsers if you allow for this to begin with. Not supporting a platform on your web-site because it is not the platform for your software makes sense how? Those sites that are restricted to particular combinations have often been created by people who either don't understand the concept of HTML (in particular that the users browser is in control of the way the content is rendered), or have built the site using building block components over which they have little understanding and control.
Exactly! One of our products is a.NET app. It won't run on Mac, so when a designer buddy reported that there were minor bugs on the site in Safari, we didn't exactly put that problem at the top of our list. Limited resources are best spent elsewhere
This attitude is short-sighted though. Just because they are using a Mac as web-browser does not mean they are not interested in your product. Here is a case in point: MSDN requires IE to download software (at least from the subscriber area). This prevents me downloading the images at work (Linux/FF). Now, I will shortly have to build rather a large number of Windows servers for a big development system. Now, I will work around this if I need to download an image rather than use one of the MSDN DVD's, but if this was a commercial site and I was trying to sign up or buy something, then there is a good change they would lose business. Just because my machine isn't the configuration your software is aimed at doesn't mean I don't have a project that requires it...
Slashdot Mirror
Except, of course, that 1Kb = 1024 bytes was in use long before 1999...
No, SMTP does not transfer files. SMTP transfers plain text messages. MIME can be used to encode a file in such a way that it can be embedded into an SMTP message. SMTP is not a file transfer protocol.
Sony the Barbarian?
The really odd thing is that many kids these days will happily pay £2-3 for a 30 second clip of a song for a ring tone, but think that £1 for a song, or £10 for a CD of 8-15 songs is a rip-off. Can't work that one out myself.
Most UK fuel consumption quotes are for the combined figure that takes a mix of motorway cruising and town driving. For instance, my old car did about 38mpg driving to work (part A road = 70mph, part crawling through town), but could achieve about 58mpg when doing long distance (All motorway and A road). These are real figures measured by mileage divided by actual fuel consumed, not manufacturers figures.
The CNet story sounds somewhat similar to this story perhaps? Victim calls for longer sentences
I think they have been testing this on a daily basis recently
Well, I clicked the "I do not agree" button, and it still takes you through to the details...
The thing you, and many others, are missing here is a proper back-up cycle. Yes, mirroring your data to another server is (like RAID) a good way to safeguard your current data. It does nothing to provide the ability to get a file from the day before, the week before, the year before etc. This is where tape backup excels, with a proper hierachial backup strategy.
I've never seen a device that could handle both
Both my TV and my (cheap) VCR can handle both NTSC and PAL - the VCR will translate NTSC to PAL (I'm in the UK) and the TV will accept an NTSC input, so I could plug in an NTSC device.
Unfortunately SMTP as a protocol is not designed to operate in this way. Email works on the basis of a store and forward system, such that your email may flow through a number of servers to get to its destination. Each of these servers may accept the email without knowing whether the final destination is valid, and then become responsible for forwarding it on to the next hop. There is no direct connection from your computer to the final destination, and no way of signalling the transit of the email, other than sending an email back to you. This used to be done by default in the way of "bounce messages" "Non delivery reports" and "timeout messages". Because of the volume of spam using forged sender information (as sender information is not authenticated in standard SMTP), these are usually turned off, as otherwise you suddenly find your email inundated with thousands of bounces and NDR's etc when someone uses your domain to spam from.
"Use a new protocol then" is usually the response here, but that is unlikely given the number of existing, working, SMTP installation. If spam is defeated, however, maybe you will find NDR's etc being used again. So, in summary, SMTP already does this, but it's disabled because of people misusing a system that was designed when people were trusted not to abuse it.
Who is this "you" that is being referred to? It certainly isn't me . I'm a "mere user." I don't have to maintain the multitudes of machines running my applications. Somebody else does.
And, as a user, your main concern is whether or not the applications are available. So, it doesn't really matter whether it is you, or not, what matters is that the maintenance is easier. Also, if the apps are centralised, they are running from server class hardware, not that £299 Dell that the boss saw an offer for in the back of a magazine. It's the same reason your data is generally safer on the server than on your desktop - better hardware and a managed backup policy etc.
What else would Britian be a part of? I've never understood why the British seem to think themselves completely seperate from Europe.
Well, consider the fact that "Europe" might refer to "Mainland Europe", which we aren't part of, or "the continent of Europe", which we are, or the "European Community/European Union" which we are also part of. It might be used to refer to the Franco/German ideal of a "United States of Europe" which we don't want much to do with. It could also be used to refer to the economic "European Monetary Union" which we aren't part of.
Now do you understand a bit more?
If Ford buy a kernel from Montavista, they don't care where it came from, and they expect Montavista to have QAed their product. The fact that Montavista didn't write it isn't Ford's problem. Automotive suppliers like Delco aggregate components from sub-suppliers too, but they accept liability (in the first instance) if their aggregate goes wrong: they can't turn around and say to Ford "oh, we didn't make these capacitors, talk to our supplier CapCo". Delco might, at some later point, turn around and sue CapCo, but Ford has no relationship with CapCo, no responsibity for QAing CapCo's capacitors, and no desire to go chasing CapCo when things go wrong.
But if Ford are asssembling circuits from the capacitors, it is their responsbility to ensure the circuit works. MontaVista won't supply Ford with a working engine control module (i.e. hardware with a custom software component). Either Ford produce one, or they get another supplier (who might then be MVs customer). In either case, the responsibility for the module is not MVs. Bear in mind that MV supply software, and in most cases software is supplied without warranty no matter who is supplying it (yes, I am aware there are exceptions, but in the normal business world this is the case). This in itself makes it very different from a company that supplies manufactured products.Auto companies get sued all the time (rightly and wrongly), as to their major suppliers (Delco, Denso, Bosch etc.). If a supplier's part is defective, a class action against the supplier may result. If the supplier is big like Delco they'll be in a position to defend against that action, and have enough money and insurance to survive if they lose the action.
But linux comes largely from little guys like Montevista. Even if they do accept liability, they're still too small to survive a huge automotive-defect class action. So GM or Toyota or BMW would be left holding the bill. The major automotive electronics suppliers will accept liability, and are big enough to be credible partners in a litigative society. Microsoft sells (very limited) automotive electronics products, and are again credible (from a business perspective).
Firstly, it's Montavista. Note the 'a' in the middle.
Secondly, why would they accept liability - they are just providing a development kit and support. The hardware design and manufacture and the programming of the system is down to the customer - if there is a defect in these it's got nothing to do with Montavista. If you run into a bug in the kernel, well that is what your QA department is for. Auto suppliers are liable for errors in parts they manufacture, not for how you use them.
From the point of view of his cash flow...
No, he got a new Mac Mini because there is a statutory minimum 12 month warranty within the UK, plus a further, non-specific "fitness for purpose" warranty, that means goods should last a reasonable amount of time. For instance if your washing machine or fridge breaks down within 3 years, you are within your rights to insist on repair or replacement even outside this warranty, as if it doesn't last this long, it was not fit for sale.
How long would it take you to copy the data for transit (you're not suggesting you transport your master copy, surely), and then restore it?
I think it is you who need to fix your broken MTA:
"An SMTP server MAY verify that the domain name parameter in the EHLO command actually corresponds to the IP address of the client. However, the server MUST NOT refuse to accept a message for this reason if the verification fails: the information about verification failure is for logging and tracing only."
Note the "MUST NOT". Rejecting an email because the host has no reverse DNS or incorrect host name is prohibited by RFC2821
you are trying to tell me that software is limiting a fighter so it can drop at subsonic, but not at supersonic speeds????? I am not an engineer, but somehow I doubt that.
Maybe the targetting algorithms cannot calculate the correct path for a supersonic launch. Maybe the ordinance has been upgraded for supersonic launch and this has lead to different parameters and so the software needs updating. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The Google satellite view of my house is at least 8 years old.
Funnily enough, sometimes, yes. Although it's not "American" because the steering wheel is on the wrong side of the car. Those cunning French and Germans etc. do the same. Plenty of Porsche's over here like that.
People who talk like you are often people on an extreme edge where it only matters that the code is semantical and shows your text.
No, people like me understand both the technology and the standards, and understand the concept of working within these - right tool for the job etc.
But in real situations, presentation matters, and yea I totally want that pink sidebar with 3D graphics for my girl fashion site (for example).
You can make sites look good without breaking standards. If your requirements break these, then there is a fault in your process.
You are shortsighted. What if they don't have internet or browser, or use DOS? It doesn't mean they're not interested in your product.
Yes, and if your web-site is your only method of sales, this is true. Which is why most businesses also sell over the phone etc.
What if they don't have computer? And what, you market via web sites?! How shortsighted.
Ditto.
What if they are aliens and don't understand human languages. There is STILL some possibility they can be interested in your product! Prove me wrong! Can you? No you can't.
This is an assumption many businesses make - the defacto language of computing and the Internet is English. If you truly want to reach internationally, you need to support other languages. International companies do it.
Oh wait we live in a real world, where it's just enough to have a reasonable threshold when targeting potential customers, rather than speculating on random assumptions
The problem with your argument is that many of these assumptions are made because there is a very real and significant cost for arranging your business around them, however this is not true for supporting multiple browsers if you allow for this to begin with. Not supporting a platform on your web-site because it is not the platform for your software makes sense how? Those sites that are restricted to particular combinations have often been created by people who either don't understand the concept of HTML (in particular that the users browser is in control of the way the content is rendered), or have built the site using building block components over which they have little understanding and control.
Exactly! One of our products is a .NET app. It won't run on Mac, so when a designer buddy reported that there were minor bugs on the site in Safari, we didn't exactly put that problem at the top of our list. Limited resources are best spent elsewhere
This attitude is short-sighted though. Just because they are using a Mac as web-browser does not mean they are not interested in your product. Here is a case in point: MSDN requires IE to download software (at least from the subscriber area). This prevents me downloading the images at work (Linux/FF). Now, I will shortly have to build rather a large number of Windows servers for a big development system. Now, I will work around this if I need to download an image rather than use one of the MSDN DVD's, but if this was a commercial site and I was trying to sign up or buy something, then there is a good change they would lose business. Just because my machine isn't the configuration your software is aimed at doesn't mean I don't have a project that requires it...