From owner-freebsd-current Wed May 26 23:26:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8089D155C6 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 23:26:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA57769; Wed, 26 May 1999 23:27:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) To: junkmale@xtra.co.nz Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FTP passive mode - a new default? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 May 1999 17:53:48 +1200." <19990527055617.VFKU7869945.mta1-rme@wocker> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:27:24 -0700 Message-ID: <57765.927786444@zippy.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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 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 it to YES by > > default somewhere? > > That makes more sense to me than introducing a new flag. > -- > Dan Langille - DVL Software Limited > The FreeBSD Diary - http://www.FreeBSDDiary.org/freebsd/ > NZ FreeBSD User Group - http://www.nzfug.nz.freebsd.org/ > The Racing System - http://www.racingsystem.com/racingsystem.htm > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message