> I'm not convinced that creating a new option is the solution.
> I would prefer that if the first LIST -a returns an empty list, it
> retries just with LIST to detect if it's a server without this
> (which is likely, we don't even have . and ..)
>
> Naturally, if there ever was a working LIST -a *or* LIST worked but LIST
> -a failed, would be remembered for the following requests to this host.
Could you enlighten me about where '-a' comes from ?
RFC 959 is very clear that a param after LIST is either a filename or a
directory name.
I just tested two ftp servers, that I have access to:
First server:
LIST -a returns an empty list (correct, since there is no file named '-a')
LIST returns the directory listing
Second server:
LIST -a returns the directory listing, but LIST -b or LIST -x also do the
same. (IMHO not 100% correct, request for a non-existing file will be answered
by the full directory listing. But acceptable.)
LIST returns the directory listing
Are there servers that really respect 'LIST -a' as a Unix 'ls -a' pendant ?
Even if they exists, what do they do with a plain 'LIST' ?
What I want to figure out: is Wgets current behaviour ('LIST -a' first, 'LIST'
second on error) really more helpful than a RFC compliant 'LIST' only ?
Maybe these non-compliant FTP servers already died out ? Or they have a
fingerprint (220...) that we could identify them ?
Regards, Tim
