[I may have figured out why we could not make progress before, and we
may be finally converging on a solution. P4 at the bottom. ]
On 01/29/2014 08:51 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 30/01/2014 1:44 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
P1: ignore ftp_epsv off for IPv6 servers.
What I was meaning was this
On 2014-01-31 07:35, Alex Rousskov wrote:
[I may have figured out why we could not make progress before, and we
may be finally converging on a solution. P4 at the bottom. ]
On 01/29/2014 08:51 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 30/01/2014 1:44 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
P1: ignore ftp_epsv off
On 01/30/2014 03:35 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
P4-b: Shall we skip the arguing and go straight to ACL driven in that
format? I think it may be faster to simply write up a patch for ACLs
with a default allow all and simply allow/deny action choice than to
continue discussions around the on/off
On 31/01/2014 12:17 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 01/30/2014 03:35 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
P4-b: Shall we skip the arguing and go straight to ACL driven in that
format? I think it may be faster to simply write up a patch for ACLs
with a default allow all and simply allow/deny action choice
On 31/01/2014 5:35 p.m., Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 31/01/2014 12:17 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 01/30/2014 03:35 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
P4-b: Shall we skip the arguing and go straight to ACL driven in that
format? I think it may be faster to simply write up a patch for ACLs
with a default
On 01/29/2014 12:30 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
off should never be abused to mean half-off.
The problem here is that the directive itself was misnamed IMO.
It is named correctly for its scope
OK, then its scope is wrong.
The scope is right.
For IPv4, it is right. For IPv6, it is right. For a
[if you don't want the point-by-point skip to the end ]
On 2014-01-30 05:57, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 01/29/2014 12:30 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
off should never be abused to mean half-off.
The problem here is that the directive itself was misnamed IMO.
It is named correctly for its scope
OK,
On 01/29/2014 03:19 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
[if you don't want the point-by-point skip to the end ]
I skipped discussion of other use cases. I want to focus on my simple
use case before considering others (and no, I did not say my case is
more important than others; just that I want to focus on
On 30/01/2014 1:44 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 01/29/2014 03:19 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
[if you don't want the point-by-point skip to the end ]
I skipped discussion of other use cases. I want to focus on my simple
use case before considering others (and no, I did not say my case is
more
On 01/25/2014 06:05 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 25/01/2014 9:27 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
I propose to limit squid.conf ftp_epsv off prohibition to IPv4 FTP
servers.
...
Do you think it would be OK to allow the use of EPSV commands with IPv6
servers even if ftp_epsv is off?
off
On 29/01/2014 9:24 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 01/25/2014 06:05 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 25/01/2014 9:27 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
I propose to limit squid.conf ftp_epsv off prohibition to IPv4 FTP
servers.
...
Do you think it would be OK to allow the use of EPSV commands with
On 01/28/2014 09:29 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 29/01/2014 9:24 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 01/25/2014 06:05 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
off should never be abused to mean half-off.
The problem here is that the directive itself was misnamed IMO. It
should have been ftp_epsv_for_ipv4 or
On 29/01/2014 6:40 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 01/28/2014 09:29 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 29/01/2014 9:24 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 01/25/2014 06:05 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
off should never be abused to mean half-off.
The problem here is that the directive itself was misnamed IMO.
On 25/01/2014 9:27 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
Hello,
I propose to limit squid.conf ftp_epsv off prohibition to IPv4 FTP
servers.
Setting ftp_epsv to off is often necessary to correctly handle
real-world cases where an IPv4 FTP server correctly responds to an EPSV
command but is
14 matches
Mail list logo
