Talk:Managed file transfer

Old discussion
Can whoever posted the notice that the entry reads too much like an advertisement please review again? If the judgement remains the same, can I get some advice on what to cut / change that would help? I reasearched the topic fully and only included info that reflects general concensus out there in analyst land.

Elmorgan (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed it (anyone can); I happen to agree that enough edits have been made that it's not "ad-ish" anymore.

Radiantmatrix (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is near gibberish in its current form.

The reason the term "managed file transfer" exists is because a Gartner analyst named Frank Kenney put a label in the mid-2000's on a fast-growing market space where $10-50K products like MOVEit, Globalscape's EFT and Tumbleweed were already competing.

MFT solutions are NOT for sale to "individual consumers". They are rarely sold even to individual IT administrators. Instead, MFT solutions are typically purchased by project teams that comprise a variety of lines of business, IT management, security management and other functions.

C:D is a poor example of MFT; it's one of the oldest and least liked solutions in the entire industry. (If we're going to have a mascot, let's pick something prettier.)

The "Background" section is all about the FTP protocol and why MFT solutions usually use something else. (Note that this may be changing after the next round of FTP IETF drafts.) Instead, this should talk about the other features listed above and why those are so critical to an MFT solution.

There's a lot more that could be improved here, but for now I'd flag this article as being of poor quality. Grumble grumble.

Jonathan.lampe@standardnetworks.com (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

POV check
This article seems to read as an article outlining the benefits of Managed file transfer compared to FTP; nearly every section begins with a comparison between MFT and FTP, or with a description of FTP that usually ends with its shortcomings. It also seems to quote biased sources (that's fine) but then has all of its content based on those sources, stating things like "As more and more companies decide that FTP is inappropriate for secure file transfer"..

Also, reference 1 and 3 link to the same page, and references 1 to 3 all come from Gartner (and are all inaccessible at time of writing this). AngelSL (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the need of a POV check. and as of writing the referenced links to gartner are still inaccessible (3 years after AngelSL reported it). I would propose to remove the links. Huygens 25 (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Offline resources are acceptable. In the increasingly hostile cyber environment 2019 the advocating of secure methods of transferring data as opposed to insecure methods seems actually quite natural ,well at least to me.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the linked IBM document is a sales whitepaper and not an independent source. All of the complaints it addresses are towards non encryption based transfer methodology. It only mentions the secure transfer in headings. Because it is a sales driven document it doesn't meet what I would consider source neutrality for encyclopedia inclusion. RowanHawkins (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the linked IBM document is a sales whitepaper and not an independent source. All of the complaints it addresses are towards non encryption based transfer methodology. It only mentions the secure transfer in headings. Because it is a sales driven document it doesn't meet what I would consider source neutrality for encyclopedia inclusion. RowanHawkins (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Axway
Jcbbl (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)I am Jean-Claude Bellando working with Axway on MFT. I found the page pretty weak. Of course, the fact there no reference to Axway is not fair while Axway is a clear leader on that domain. Also I think that the Gartner history should be used. Managed File Transfer is clearly coined by Gartner. On the other side there is a lack on the why MFT? MFT existed before MFT. Typically the PeSIT standard that Axway is using was created in the 90ties to by banks (in France) because they needed interoperability with security, reliability and integrity. There is a need of paragraph on SFTP that is today the most accepted standard for MFT. There is a need for a paragraph on new dimensions on MFT: MFT & big data, MFT & cybersecurity, …Jcbbl (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is not the proper place to advertise your implementation. Under POV, I think the linked IBM document shouldvalso be removed since it to is a sales driven document. Gartner research is also sales driven research since those studies are vendor driven. RowanHawkins (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Managed file transfer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111102183750/http://www.itjungle.com/fhs/fhs090109-story01.html to http://www.itjungle.com/fhs/fhs090109-story01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)