On Sunday 03 June 2007, Gergely CZUCZY wrote: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 11:43:10PM +0800, LI Xin wrote: > > Max Laier wrote: > > [...] > > > > > How do people feel about removing ftp-proxy from the base > > > altogether? I think it's better off in ports anyway. Opinions? > > I would vote for including pftpx (the newer version in OpenBSD) iirc. > Almost a year ago I've made an ftp service where the ftpd was jailed to > a local IP address, and i had to use ftp-proxy for this propose. This > reverse-proxying stuff couldn't be achived with the ftp-proxy in > base, so i had to use the later version, which has the name pftpx > in the ports tree. I'd vote for replacing ftp-proxy with pftpx.
Okay, but why? Is there any reason you can't use pftpx (or the newer version of ftp-proxy) from the ports tree? Why does ftp-proxy have to be in base? -- /"\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
pgpmxmOUiWaPq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
