Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-04.txt

Frank Ellermann <> Fri, 08 July 2011 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2042F21F8CD8 for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.039
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EyWjoPKsMcav for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953DC21F8CC5 for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvh18 with SMTP id 18so1847352pvh.31 for <>; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jGs0qRDyh/ncTLBGgsmRqwAvFnXyq3iWCTKdL7mqX3c=; b=FWX/QBwL6ZugcHBus6k3t236AJuUpdA7PhFN7vG2o0z2DAlyZvkAGFH6acKaZt7PVM vfzAjMf3lkeB6MXBaG8QdaZ+kMDK/BVgDLA22Ct6nx5Zx/ConQPM8smHf3KhAe6Gkspy 6lbwKB0IGTIwZFLzzbIRN/Cg/i7DhbxadvqMA=
Received: by with SMTP id s39mr476267wfc.237.1310153365113; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C3E9EF6E0154D73656D30639@PST.JCK.COM>
References: <> <> <C3E9EF6E0154D73656D30639@PST.JCK.COM>
From: Frank Ellermann <>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:29:05 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: John C Klensin <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: URI <>, Apps-discuss list <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 19:29:26 -0000

On 8 July 2011 19:46, John C Klensin <> wrote:

>> The anonymous:mail construct is also not more state of the art
>> for privacy reasons, unless it is a mail address in TLD invalid
>> or similar.

> Disagree.  If I'm an FTP repository provider, I can ask you to
> give up your email address in return for service if I want to.
> Whether I trust the address you give me is another matter, but
> that isn't a privacy issue.

Your server, your rules.  Nevertheless user agents such as web
browsers MUST NOT use valuable email accounts in anonymous FTP
connections without explicit consent of the user.  I don't think
that address harvesting by spammers on anonymous FTP servers is a
serious threat, but "anonymous" should be what the name says, as
long as the user didn't explicitly set something else.

If your FTP server does not accept anonymous:me@privacy.invalid
it is fine, I'd know how to use another FTP client where I can
add one of the addresses you know.  But exactly these addresses
should not be used in anonymous connections with arbitrary FTP
servers, unless I explicitly confirmed it for a given server.