PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky) (04/14/87)
Just got around to reading the Subj: msg and hope it's not too late to point out that the desired effect (of passwordless "spoolers" via FTP) can be achieved straightforwardly given the mechanisms of a couple of my old (one ancient, actually) RFCs. Since it would take longer for me to find the numbers than to summarize, here goes: Back in ~'73, when mail was done via FTP, we had a problem with not having all Hosts able/willing to let given users in without passwords (indeed, some Hosts didn't even demand USER commands, muchless PASSs, but others demanded both). In a little thing called "What Is 'Free'?" (RFC # in the 500s, I expect), I suggested that any mail senders which encountered the Login Expected FTP code should use USER NETML and PASS NETML (and any mail receivers on systems that demanded logins should duly cause the appropriate accounts to be created). Seems to me we could do the same thing with "NETSPL" for the passwordless aspect of the current thing. Then a year or two ago (and this one actually is in the latest version of the FTP RFC), for some obscure reason I decided there ought to be an FTP command for STOring under a Unique name for use in all sorts of "pool" directory cases, so if I remembered that one's number and the other one's I could have just said Why not use the RFC 5xx and 9xx tricks? (By the way, the 5xx trick was duly implemented and worked for years [even if nobody other than Multics did the receiving end part].) If my current state of seemingly eternal jetlag hasn't caused me to miss the point, I think that should do it. Do I need to write another RFC to forget the number of? cheers, map P.S. Lest anybody misunderstand, I was at Multics at the time and invented the fictious mail receiver thing in self defense; cf. pp. 84-5 of The Book. -------