home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
kermit.columbia.edu.tar
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
newsgroups
/
misc.20010306-20010921
/
000036_news@columbia.edu _Wed Mar 21 08:21:40 2001.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2001-09-20
|
2KB
Return-Path: <news@columbia.edu>
Received: from newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.30])
by uhaligani.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11285
for <kermit.misc@cpunix.cc.columbia.edu>; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:21:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from news@localhost)
by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02396
for kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:21:24 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu: news set sender to <news> using -f
From: "DMC" <devo_dave@hotmail.com>
Subject: What could Kermit implement from FTP?
Message-ID: <3ab8aabf@news.iprimus.com.au>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 23:17:29 +1000
Organization: CWO Customer - reports relating to abuse should be sent to abuse@cwo.net.au
To: kermit.misc@columbia.edu
Hi again,
Thanks for your replies to my previous post. I have come up with a large
list of features that FTP could utilise from Kermit, but have only a handful
that Kermit could borrow from FTP. Basically i have listed:
Kermit might benefit from the following FTP features:
? Utilisation of a more comprehensive command-reply functionality
? Support for the 'page' file structure in addition to the file and record
structures
Not a very comprehensive list :) but Kermit does implement a plethora of
functionality not provided by FTP. So where else do i look?
As for circumstances where a user might choose between Kermit or FTP, i have
only really mentioned the relative robustness of Kermit for use on
unreliable lines and/or LAN, X.25 connections, etc that are unsupported by
FTP. I have also mentioned possibly the overheads of having to learn the
Kermit interface as opposed to FTP are higher.
Thanks again for your help.
Dave