From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 22 00:10:59 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A7C16A415 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:10:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from mxout-03.mxes.net (mxout-03.mxes.net [216.86.168.178]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1745D13C4C6 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:10:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com (unknown [87.81.140.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908B6519D0 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:10:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:10:54 +0000 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070322001054.1f05560b@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <4601B593.7050007@mac.com> References: <0EE4A357-FB1C-410D-BDF2-AF3A8BC7736B@goldmark.org> <20070319143905.7c69cc41@gumby.homeunix.com> <823E470A-93A8-4B6B-899A-E337FB75CABD@goldmark.org> <4601B593.7050007@mac.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.8.1 (GTK+ 2.10.11; i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Summary: Tell portupgrade to use passive ftp X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:10:59 -0000 On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:45:39 -0800 "Peter A. Giessel" wrote: > On 2007/03/21 14:29, Jeffrey Goldberg seems to have typed: > > > > As an aside, I'd like to rant that there is no reason for ftp to > > exist anymore. Sure it is stateful in a way that HTTP isn't, but > > that isn't enough to justify its continued use. > > > > > > Of course having recently displayed my ignorance of how these > > things work, > > I'm in no position to make such proclamations. > > > > > > Two reasons: > 1) FTP supports "resume" for a partial download Which is actually inferior to the support for byte-ranges in HTTP 1.1 Download utilities that support multiple TCP connections have to resort to breaking them to work with FTP.