Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 20:02:27 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: jfieber@indiana.edu (John Fieber), gary@palmer.demon.co.uk, stable@freebsd.org, jkh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Oct 20 snap install... Message-ID: <12194.814676547@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Oct 1995 12:07:21 %2B0930." <199510260237.MAA09365@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The passive option is still half useless without socks libraries in the > installer. (In fact, I received _zero_ responses to my question asking > about proxy FTP servers, so I've reluctantly concluded that socks is all > that there is) Weeelllll.. I wouldn't quite say that. Passive FTP truly takes care of a *lot* of firewalled folks, including everybody I know at Cisco (and if they don't represent a good example of a seriously facist network then nobody does!). You can also specify an arbitrary port number with the current install as part of the URL, e.g.: ftp://foo.bar.com:<portnum>/path And this takes care of a lot of the proxies.. More than that, I dunno.. There are limits to how far I'm willing to bend over backwards to deal with sites who'd really prefer that their users go back to passing information back and forth on paper and get those scary network connectors unplugged from their machines! :-) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?12194.814676547>