On Tuesday 16 July 2002 17:43, you wrote: > >>> gjw49 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/16 5:08 >>> > > On Tuesday 16 July 2002 17:01, you wrote: > > Yes, passive mode (ie from a web browser) works fine. What I think is > > > >ok. um, sorry I must be missing something - what exactly is wrong with > > passive mode again? > > Nothing - except completeness ! the FW machine is being used by a group of > non-tech users so I was attempting to make sure that I didn't leave > anything behind to trip them up and have them respond with yes but Linux > didn't work for this (which wouldn't be true).
ah, I see... > > In fact I understand that passive is less of a security risk (if I read > correctly) > > However the good news is that having gone back to them the only FTP traffic > will be ex a web browser so no problem with the non-tech users ah, excellent. (although it's probably not a good idea to rely on it unless you can guarantee that they'll only ever use a web browser and that won't change in the future..?) > > >snip... > > > >oh... > >(you do realise you can use passive mode with command line ftp too right? > >after you log in type 'passive'...) > > Actually I just learned something new :-) - thank you. I was aware of the oh, cool. n/p :-) > two different methods but not that you could use the passive mode ex > command line, excellent !! > > Thanks > > Richard Smart > (still learning .. :-) ) hehe. aren't we all :-) Cheers, Gareth
