On Jul 13, 2009, at 8:28 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. 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?
+1 for keeping as is.
Should we alert the user to the ServerAdmin address in the HELP
contents?
+1
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.
