From owner-freebsd-current Sat May 29 3:18:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC2814FEE for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 03:18:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) id MAA11849; Sat, 29 May 1999 12:18:20 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: Ollivier Robert Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FTP passive mode - a new default? References: <19990526182800.EGOX7623210.mta2-rme@wocker> <19990528195947.A93018@keltia.freenix.fr> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 29 May 1999 12:18:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: Ollivier Robert's message of "Fri, 28 May 1999 19:59:47 +0200" Message-ID: Lines: 15 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Ollivier Robert writes: > According to Dag-Erling Smorgrav: > > FTP servers which do not accept passive mode are, IMHO, broken. Their > They're broken with respect to RFC-959, not only to your opinion :-) No. Allowable responses to the PASV command include 227 (Entering passive mode), 500 (Unrecognized command), 501 (Invalid parameters), 502 (Command not implemented), 421 (Service not available), and 530 (Not logged in). A server which does not wish to allow passive mode can thus choose to acknowledge the command but refuse to obey it (502), or to reject the command altogether (500). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message