Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:53:22 +1030 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru> Cc: David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/lukemftpd - Imported sources Message-ID: <20021113232322.GP2919@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <20021113111030.GA83756@regency.nsu.ru> References: <200211120642.gAC6gfg0043798@repoman.freebsd.org> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021112090605.34156A-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20021112171203.GB59816@dragon.nuxi.com> <20021113111030.GA83756@regency.nsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, 13 November 2002 at 17:10:30 +0600, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:12:03AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:15:53AM -0500, Robert Watson wrote: >> >>> Lukemftpd *cannot* be the suggested FTPd. >> >> Why?? It works fine for many and I've seen many installations use it >> that find the "regular" ftpd *way* too feature limited for any ftp site >> on the naked Internet. > > AFAIC, regular ftpd is more secure and robust than lukemftpd. I've > seen reports in the past saying that performance issues in lukemftpd > are unavoidable WRT fixing them. Until we get performance and > security up to what we have in ftpd right now, IMHO it's rather > meaningless to compare features. This is the first report of this kind I've heard. Can you supply details? Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021113232322.GP2919>