I had an HP-UX server running a REBOL script in a cron job every
night to pull a data file from a wNT box.  That script does

    foo: read ftp://userid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/path/file.txt

(wrapped in a try block), then post-processes the data before
writing it to a local file.  This had been running non-stop
since mid-April.

On 26 Jun 2000 I upgraded that HP-UX box from 2.2 to 2.3
(don't try to read that aloud! ;-).  Everything continued to
work properly.

On 10 Aug 2000 the above statement began consistently failing.
I can run the standard ftp utility from the command line and
retrieve the file (with almost instantaneous response), but
the REBOL script fails whether run manually or via cron.

When I run REBOL interactively and try the same command, with
tracing enabled, I get the following:

    >> system/schemes/ftp/passive: on
    == true

(The above inspired by Carl's note below, but the same happens
without that intervention.)

    >> foo: read ftp://userid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/path/file.txt
    connecting to: 1.2.3.4
    ** User Error: Server error: tcp HTTP/1.0 408 Request Time-out.
    ** Where: foo: read ftp://userid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/path/file.txt

    >> trace/net on
    >> foo: read ftp://userid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/path/file.txt
    URL Parse: userid password 1.2.3.4 none path/ file.txt
    Net-log: ["Opening tcp for" FTP]
    connecting to: 1.2.3.4
    Net-log: [
        none ["220" "230"]]
    ** User Error: Server error: tcp HTTP/1.0 408 Request Time-out.
    ** Where: foo: read ftp://userid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/path/file.txt

    >> system/schemes/ftp/passive
    == true

Any suggestions from the REBOLnetworkingwizards about what I should
try next?

-jn-

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> It might be your firewall, if you have one.  The 2.3 release
> needs to have a line:
> 
>   system/schemes/ftp/passive: on
> 
> in order to run in passive mode.  Not very user friendly, sorry.
> 2.2 did it automatically, but this mode cannot be reliably
> detected on some firewalls.
> 
> I'm think that we need to detect it better under 2.3... and do
> at least as well as 2.2 in guessing at it.
> 
> -Carl
>

Reply via email to