Nathan Dorfman nat...@rtfm.net writes:
Certain shareware lose95 FTP servers don't know how to do passive mode.
No need to go looking through Windows software; the unjustly popular
ncftp is equally braindead. The ncftp man page makes for very
interesting (and depressing) reading; it is quite
On Thu, May 27, 1999 at 09:46:51PM -0700, John Polstra wrote:
In article pine.bsf.4.03.9905271100280.16577-100...@resnet.uoregon.edu,
Doug White dwh...@resnet.uoregon.edu wrote:
I second the suggestion to 'autoprobe' PASV support, and revert to active
mode (w/ an appropriate msg) if PASV
Ollivier Robert robe...@keltia.freenix.fr writes:
According to Dag-Erling Smorgrav:
FTP servers which do not accept passive mode are, IMHO, broken. Their
They're broken with respect to RFC-959, not only to your opinion :-)
No. Allowable responses to the PASV command include 227 (Entering
Jordan K. Hubbard j...@zippy.cdrom.com writes:
My only point was that you should make sure something is a certain way
before you offer advice for dealing with its *current* behavior since,
otherwise, that's just confusing to everyone. Either way, I don't
think that *any* of the current
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 03:50:21AM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard
j...@zippy.cdrom.com wrote:
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE obsolete by virtue of being the
default for all tools/libraries which currently examine it.
Jordan K. Hubbard j...@zippy.cdrom.com writes:
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE obsolete by virtue of being the
default for all tools/libraries which currently examine it.
FTP_ACTIVE_MODE will be the new flag for toggling the
Doug White dwh...@resnet.uoregon.edu writes:
I second the suggestion to 'autoprobe' PASV support, and revert to active
mode (w/ an appropriate msg) if PASV is refused.
No. Ncftp tries to do this, and provides adequate proof that it is not
practical.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav -
Dan Langille junkm...@xtra.co.nz writes:
For the argument that some ftp servers don't accept passive mode, I say
it's a question of numbers: which default setting will satisfy the
greatest number of people? which setting will reduce the number of
questions how do I do X?
FTP servers which
Jan B. Koum j...@best.com writes:
Yay! This is awesome. I guess in addition to ftp, the tools and
libraries you talk about would also include fetch, and other firewall
not so friendly things? (Would be nice if CVSup can fake FTP_PASSIVE_MODE
by doing '-P -' too).
CVSup uses multiplexed
On 28 May 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Jan B. Koum j...@best.com writes:
Yay! This is awesome. I guess in addition to ftp, the tools and
libraries you talk about would also include fetch, and other firewall
not so friendly things? (Would be nice if CVSup can fake
Nick Hibma nick.hi...@jrc.it writes:
On 28 May 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
CVSup uses multiplexed mode by default, which means it multiplexes its
various data channels over a single TCP connection. The server does
not (should not) attempt to connect back to the client.
No.
Yes, it
CVSup uses multiplexed mode by default, which means it multiplexes its
various data channels over a single TCP connection. The server does
not (should not) attempt to connect back to the client.
No.
$ /usr/local/bin/cvsup /usr/src-supfile -g -L 2
...
Establishing active-mode
On 28 May 1999 at 14:05, Dag-Erling Smorgrav d...@flood.ping.uio.no wrote:
FTP servers which do not accept passive mode are, IMHO, broken. Their
loss.
I'll second that opinion. Netscape and Microsoft browsers, at least,
have been using passive FTP for years (1994 or earlier). One could
argue
According to Dag-Erling Smorgrav:
FTP servers which do not accept passive mode are, IMHO, broken. Their
They're broken with respect to RFC-959, not only to your opinion :-)
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- robe...@keltia.freenix.fr
FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 4.0-CURRENT
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 02:09:19PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav
d...@flood.ping.uio.no wrote:
Jan B. Koum j...@best.com writes:
Yay! This is awesome. I guess in addition to ftp, the tools and
libraries you talk about would also include fetch, and other firewall
not so friendly things?
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 03:13:55PM -0700, Jan B. Koum jkb wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 02:09:19PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav
d...@flood.ping.uio.no wrote:
Jan B. Koum j...@best.com writes:
Yay! This is awesome. I guess in addition to ftp, the tools and
libraries you talk about
* From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav d...@flood.ping.uio.no
* FTP servers which do not accept passive mode are, IMHO, broken. Their
* loss.
No. The losers will be our users who can't talk to them.
I don't have a problem with changing the default as long as there are
ways to turn them off easily
Jan B. Koum j...@best.com writes:
I know how CVSup works. If you are behind firewall, you need to use
-P - command line switch. [...]
No. I use CVSup from behind a firewall daily (actually, 23 times a day
on one box and 24 times a day on another) without any fancy switches.
DES
--
as...@freebsd.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) writes:
* From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav d...@flood.ping.uio.no
* FTP servers which do not accept passive mode are, IMHO, broken. Their
* loss.
No. The losers will be our users who can't talk to them.
I don't have a problem with changing
* From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav d...@flood.ping.uio.no
* I don't have a problem with changing the default as long as there are
* ways to turn them off easily (read: on a per-port basis). Can we
* cancel an environment variable set in /etc/login.conf from a Makefile?
*
* If we just set
as...@freebsd.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) writes:
No. This is from libftpio/ftpio.c:
Libftpio will shortly be deprecated.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - d...@flood.ping.uio.no
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the
If we just set FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=YES in /etc/login.conf or
/etc/profile, all the user needs to do is set FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=NO
before trying to fetch the port.
Heh, no. UTSL. All the code which checks this, checks to see if it's
set to anything at all, not if it's set explicitly to YES. :)
-
Jordan K. Hubbard j...@zippy.cdrom.com writes:
If we just set FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=YES in /etc/login.conf or
/etc/profile, all the user needs to do is set FTP_PASSIVE_MODE=NO
before trying to fetch the port.
Heh, no. UTSL. All the code which checks this, checks to see if it's
set to anything
* From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav d...@flood.ping.uio.no
* Libftpio will shortly be deprecated.
Fine. Just make sure /etc/login.conf is not updated too early then.
Satoshi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Well, if we're replacing it with libfetch then either fetch(1) or
libfetch(3) need to check it too. At the moment, neither does - I
just checked. :-)
- Jordan
as...@freebsd.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) writes:
No. This is from libftpio/ftpio.c:
Libftpio will shortly be
No, you're the one who's wrong, the source is simply the source. :-)
My only point was that you should make sure something is a certain way
before you offer advice for dealing with its *current* behavior since,
otherwise, that's just confusing to everyone. Either way, I don't
think that *any*
Jordan K. Hubbard j...@zippy.cdrom.com writes:
Well, if we're replacing it with libfetch then either fetch(1) or
libfetch(3) need to check it too. At the moment, neither does - I
just checked. :-)
Umm, I'm kinda embarassed. The 19990529 patchkit fixes that :)
On Wed, 26 May 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE obsolete by virtue of being the
default for all tools/libraries which currently examine it.
FTP_ACTIVE_MODE will be the new flag for toggling the
On 26 May 99, at 23:50, Adam wrote:
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE obsolete by virtue of being the
default for all tools/libraries which currently examine it.
If they already examine FTP_PASSIVE_MODE, why not just set
I could accept this as an alternative implementation, no problem. All
I care about is the functionality, and I'd personally be happier not
to have to document a new flag. :)
I'll see what setting it in login.conf does - that *should* solve the
problem swiftly and easily.
- Jordan
On 26 May
On Wed, 26 May 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
I could accept this as an alternative implementation, no problem. All
I care about is the functionality, and I'd personally be happier not
to have to document a new flag. :)
I'll see what setting it in login.conf does - that *should* solve the
In article pine.bsf.4.03.9905271100280.16577-100...@resnet.uoregon.edu,
Doug White dwh...@resnet.uoregon.edu wrote:
I second the suggestion to 'autoprobe' PASV support, and revert to active
mode (w/ an appropriate msg) if PASV is refused.
That won't be a good solution in practice. When
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE obsolete by virtue of being the
default for all tools/libraries which currently examine it.
FTP_ACTIVE_MODE will be the new flag for toggling the previous
behavior.
Given the state of the Internet
On 26 May 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard proclaimed:
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE obsolete by virtue of being the
default for all tools/libraries which currently examine it.
FTP_ACTIVE_MODE will be the new flag for toggling the
Is there a list of pro-/cons- available?
- it is slower, but by how much and on which types of lines (low/high
latency, low/high bandwidth)?
- any (windows) tools not supporting it?
Nick
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE
On 26-May-99 Nick Hibma wrote:
Is there a list of pro-/cons- available?
- it is slower, but by how much and on which types of lines (low/high
latency, low/high bandwidth)?
- any (windows) tools not supporting it?
Well funnily enough some servers won't allow passive mode, and I have
-Original Message-
From: Nick Hibma [SMTP:nick.hi...@jrc.it]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 1:38 PM
To: Jordan K. Hubbard
Cc: curr...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FTP passive mode - a new default?
Is there a list of pro-/cons- available?
- it is slower, but by how much
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE obsolete by virtue of being the
default for all tools/libraries which currently examine it.
FTP_ACTIVE_MODE will be the new flag for toggling the previous
behavior.
Given the state of the
On Wed, 26 May 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE obsolete by virtue of being the
default for all tools/libraries which currently examine it.
FTP_ACTIVE_MODE will be the new flag for toggling the
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE obsolete by virtue of being the
default for all tools/libraries which currently examine it.
FTP_ACTIVE_MODE will be the new flag for toggling the previous
behavior.
Given the state of the
On 26 May 99, at 3:50, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE obsolete by virtue of being the
default for all tools/libraries which currently examine it.
FTP_ACTIVE_MODE will be the new flag for toggling the
On Wed, 26 May 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE obsolete by virtue of being the
default for all tools/libraries which currently examine it.
FTP_ACTIVE_MODE will be the new flag for toggling the
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 07:54:03AM -0700, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote:
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE obsolete by virtue of being the
default for all tools/libraries which currently examine it.
FTP_ACTIVE_MODE will be the
do any apps check for FTP_ACTIVE_MODE?
are we going to apply patches to each app to check for this
and maintains those patches over the course of time?
seems to be a change without commensurate benefit.it will
confuse some, suprise others and doesnt seem to
Unless I hear unanimous fierce outcry against it, I'm strongly
considering making FTP_PASSIVE_MODE obsolete by virtue of being the
default for all tools/libraries which currently examine it.
If they already examine FTP_PASSIVE_MODE, why not just set it to YES by
default somewhere?
45 matches
Mail list logo
