On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:28 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.<[email protected]> wrote: > Just finished the last showstopper. I would be happy to advance this > to release / general availability vote with the next release, if we can > determine just a few oddball issue resolutions. Jim and I have already > gone ahead and moved many internal interfaces out of the private headers, > which was my motivation for holding off a year ago. > > Should we advertise the commands we have not implemented, or remove them? Yes, It's always useful to know for a more advance user. > > Should we alert the user to the ServerAdmin address in the HELP contents? Maybe reuse ServerTokens for this?
Full/OS => serveradmin + unimplemented commands Minimal => unimplemented commands Minor => only list implemented commands Major => only list allowed commands Prod => no help? That way the server admin still has a say in it? Not sure the extra coding is worth it though. > > Right now HELP offers up; > > 214-The following commands are recognized (* =>'s unimplemented). > FEAT TYPE RMD QUIT RNTO PORT *MODE APPE > *ALLO STOR PWD *STOU *REIN AUTH MDTM SYST > XMKD *SITE XCWD PASS PASV DELE *ACCT EPRT > SIZE XRMD NOOP LIST REST PBSZ XCUP NLST > *SMNT XPWD ABOR PROT HELP CDUP *STRU RNFR > MKD *STAT RETR CWD EPSV USER > 214 Direct comments to [no address given] > > Just for reference, three popular linux servers respond with no > unimplemented features, one offers "Direct comments to" admin address, > one offers the website address of it's project, and one just ends with > the result "Help OK" > > The admin has little control over which commands are supported (although > which commands are -allowed- is another matter entirely :) So it just > strikes me as odd to direct comments with respect to the HELP inquiry. > >
