From owner-freebsd-chat Sun May 3 01:50:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA29724 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 01:50:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from implode.root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA29706 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 01:50:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from root@implode.root.com) Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by implode.root.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA01030; Sun, 3 May 1998 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805030849.BAA01030@implode.root.com> To: Marc Slemko cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ftp.freebsd.org acting funny? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 03 May 1998 00:39:37 MDT." From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 01:49:31 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >> ncftp and ncftp2 work fine. What is broken is that people expect that >> passing arguments to the "ls" command will be interpreted on the other >> end when the RFC specifically says otherwise. RFC 959 is quite specific >> about the behavior of the NLST command (which is what 'ls' does in ncftp): > >Except that just issuing a "ls" in at least some versions of ncftp2 >_doesn't_ work. Oh, okay, thanks for pointing that out. To this point I was assuming that the user was typing "ls -CF", and not that the ncftp client was adding this on (THAT is clearly wrong as far as the RFC is concerned). It's pretty clear that I'm going to have to implement some sort of work around for this. :-( -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message