Valdis, On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:43:57 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:04:19 EDT, Joey Mengele said: > >> Exactly, I was talking about the RFC that supersedes that >> particular RFC. > >0959 File Transfer Protocol. J. Postel, J. Reynolds. October 1985. > (Format: TXT=147316 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0765) (Updated by >RFC2228, > RFC2640, RFC2773, RFC3659) (Also STD0009) (Status: STANDARD) > >RFC2228 is in fact about a security extension to FTP - >unfortunately, section >4 of it does not have any subsections, so there is no 4.4.3. > >RFC2640 is about internationalization of FTP, and has sections >4.3, 4.3.1, >and then 5. No 4.4.3 to be found. > >RFC2773 is about encryption using SKIPJACK, but it goes from 4.0 >to 5.0 >with no intervening 4.4.3. > >RFC3659 is about FTP extensions, but unfortunately section 4 is >about the >SIZE extension, and has a 4.4 but no 4.4.3 subsection. > >So which RFC were you talking about? >
I don't have time to hold your hand through this, some of us have jobs to do other than posting RFC titles on Internet mailing lists. > >Hint: When you find you've dug yourself into a hole, it's usually >not a >good idea to keep digging... > I think you have demonstrated this for everyone. Perhaps now we can close this thread. Or do you intend to continue your hijack? J -- Ultimate Travel Deals - Click Now! http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/Ioyw6h4dxvWYxGQfH96r7mHhCR9sgijPQtjXzxNBRhQp6ErubcppyA/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
