Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
Normally, if I want to share a file with someone, I would encrypt it (if necessary) and share it via an online cloud storage provider or scp if in a Linux environment.
With optional encryption, anonymous ftp is perfectly fine. Yes, we can use anonymous ftp with cloud storage providers without being annoyed by additional encryption and other complexities of scp. Keith Moore wrote: >> I still believe that for most users on the Internet, for the vast >> majority of cases, FTP is no longer the best answer for sharing >> files. This is why I believe that IETF making it historic would >> arguably be the right thing to do. I think that I probably stopped >> using it about 10+ years ago and haven’t missed it. >> > Well, the real problem, of course, is NAT. No implementation of "ftp:" is choked by NAT. > A lot of NATs broke FTP in > the first place especially for clients for which passive mode wasn't the > default, That is because ftp properly assumes three entities for file transfer, a sender, a receiver and a controller, whereas latter protocols assumes client/server model where the controller is assumed to be collocated with the sender or the receiver. But, if you copy some video content between two recorders with an IR controller, the IR controller is not collocated on the recorders. Masataka Ohta
