From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 26 14:30:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB7316A4CE for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:30:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from zoot.lafn.org (zoot.lafn.ORG [206.117.18.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F5343D2D for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:30:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bc979@lafn.org) Received: from [10.0.1.90] (host-66-81-182-98.rev.o1.com [66.81.182.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by zoot.lafn.org (8.12.3p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i1QMUjxH023479 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:30:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bc979@lafn.org) In-Reply-To: <20040226214605.GA15051@therub.org> References: <20040226214605.GA15051@therub.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <6AE55FA8-68AB-11D8-8C04-000393681B06@lafn.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Doug Hardie Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:30:44 -0800 To: Dan Rue X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 'clamd / ClamAV version devel-20040209', clamav-milter version '0.66m' cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ftps server (ftp with SSL, not sftp) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:30:49 -0000 On Feb 26, 2004, at 13:46, Dan Rue wrote: > Hey Gang, > I need to find a good drop in ftpd-ssl server. Please don't tell me to > use sftp - I would love to but sometimes I don't get my druthers. I > see > there's a BSDftpd-ssl, and there's a couple others in ports - are any > of > them widely used? This is on a high traffic production server, so I > can't drop in some beta software and cross my fingers. I am using BSDftpd-ssl on a production machine to provide restricted access to users' web pages. It seems to work fine. I have never encountered any problems with it. However, I don't have many users with web pages so I wouldn't call this a high traffic feature. I probably don't get more than a hand full of connections daily.