Hello Tim, if you try to connect to ftp.freebsd.org and you ask for "LIST" you will get
drwxrwxr-x 3 110 1002 512 Oct 23 2006 pub if you ask for "LIST -a" you will get drwxrwxr-x 3 110 1002 512 Aug 24 2006 . drwxrwxr-x 3 110 1002 512 Aug 24 2006 .. drwxrwxr-x 3 110 1002 512 Oct 23 2006 pub If I remember right connecting to a CNC machine via FTP the LIST command didn't show enough information (i.e. date time missing) but using "LIST -a" the list was complete. If you or anybody else needs to know exactly the FTP software (name+version) or the OS running on that machine I need time (the CNC machine is not connected over Internet). Just ask me, if it is important, and I will activate to find these information. Bye Andrea ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Ruehsen Sent: 08/30/13 11:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bug-wget] New option "--no-list-a" > 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
