On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:21:39 +0200, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > bmearns wrote: ... > (and before you proceed, reading > > http://cr.yp.to/ftp/security.html > > is also a good idea.
And RFC1123, and any number of FTP-related RFCs. There's even one fairly early RFC that encourages everyone to use the PASV command exclusively -- I still cannot see why he has to mess around with PORT. > are you 110% sure that you absolutely definitely > have to use FTP rather than HTTP/WebDAV or somesuch). Yeah; quoting RFC1123, from back in 1989: | Internet users have been unnecessarily burdened for years by deficient | FTP implementations. Protocol implementors have suffered from the | erroneous opinion that implementing FTP ought to be a small and | trivial task. [---] It seems to me (with my tiny knowledge of FTP) that if he has problems with PORT/PASV, that's nothing compared to the difficulty of implementing different data transfer modes and so on. On the other hand, implementing FTP is a cool programming project ;-) /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu \X/ snipabacken.dyndns.org> R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
