Browse Prior Art Database

Survey of FTP mail and MLFL (RFC0751)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003799D
Original Publication Date: 1978-Dec-10
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 5 page(s) / 10K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

P.D. Lebling: AUTHOR

Abstract

Two surveys of Arpanet Server hosts were run between September 20, 1978 and December 11, 1978. The intent was to determine the response of the host's Server FTP program to:

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 30% of the total text.

NWG/RFC 751 PDL 10 Dec 78 nnnnn

Network Working Group P. David Lebling

Request for Comments: 751 (PDL@MIT-DMS)

NIC: nnnnn 10 December 1978

SURVEY OF FTP MAIL AND MLFL

Two surveys of Arpanet Server hosts were run between September 20, 1978

and December 11, 1978. The intent was to determine the response of the

host's Server FTP program to:

(a) An attempt to mail to an unknown recipient at that host. The

purpose of this survey was two-fold. First, to determine whether the

host accepts mail for unknown recipients at all, and second, what

response the host gives if it does not accept such mail.

(b) An attempt to mail to a known recipient using the MLFL command

rather than the usual MAIL command. This survey was undertaken to

determine the extent of support for the MLFL command among Server hosts,

and the sort of reply received if the Server does not support MLFL. MLFL

is potentially a 'better' form of communication than mail as the message

is sent over a data connection rather than the command connection.

Using the data connection eliminates the 'end-of-mail' marker and

'command reader' problems sometimes encountered over the command

connection.

The ground rules of the survey were that all sites listed as Servers in

the MIT/SAIL Host table were surveyed. In many cases, a host listed as

a Server would not respond to an ICP at any time during the period of

the survey. Once a host responded with what seemed to me to be a

'definitive' answer, I marked it as such and stopped surveying it.

MLFL Survey

The algorithm used was to ICP to socket 3 of the server (the standard

old-FTP socket). Once a 300 response was received, I sent the MLFL

command. Where I had the name of a real mailbox at a site (a

Header-person, for example) I used that, otherwise the name "**". If a

site asked for a password (response 504) after the MLFL command I gave

"USER NETML" "PASS NETML" and retried the MLFL. If the server replied

with a 255 SOCK command, I listened for the data-connection to be

established. When it was, I transferred the mail file. Interestingly

enough, most sites implement an RFC queueing algorithm that will allow

the user site to attempt to establish the data-connection from its end.

NWG/RFC 751 PDL 10 Dec 78 nnnnn

Survey of FTP MAIL and MLFL

Complete FTP scripts may be found, if you are interested, on MIT-DM,

file NETDOC;MLFL SURVEY.

Sites are grouped by the general result they gave.

-site- -last ftp reply if lost- -when-

1) Sites that lost for various reasons:

BNL 530 NOT LOGGED IN. after MLFL

HARV-10 431 INVALID ENTRY - Try again after USER

LLL-MFE 454 Login please after SOCK

LONDON 000 INDRA FTP Version 2.00 ... after ICP

NBS-10 ...