RE: [Cpan2rpm-general] Passive FTPs?

[Erick C. <e...@ar...>]

> Erick, what do you think?

makes sense... will add to TODO list for next release

-----Original Message-----
From: cpa...@li...
[mailto:cpa...@li...]On Behalf Of Rob
Brown
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 8:48 AM
To: bishop
Cc: cpa...@li...
Subject: Re: [Cpan2rpm-general] Passive FTPs?


Bishop:

Passive mode breaks on many servers that are
behind firewalls and PORT mode is more secure
for servers than PASV mode.  And PASV is not
required to be implemented according to the
RFCs, but PORT mode is.  If anything is to be
default, it _should_ be PORT mode instead of
PASV mode.  But I think a cpan2rpm --passive
option might be appropriate to force PASV mode
for clients behind certain firewalls or NAT
configurations.  Erick, what do you think?

--
Rob

On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, bishop wrote:

> Hey folks,
> 
> My NAT-crippled boxes are hating when cpan2rpm tries to hit FTP URLs, 
> because it needs passive.  Any reason why it's not a default option? 
> I've not seen any case where 'wget --passive http://...' causes 
> problems, but I'm by no means confident that it's not an issue.
> 
> If it's something worthwhile, and safe, how about this:
> 
> [patch]
> 
> As a start, it forces passive for wget and ncftp.  I know that wget 
> doesn't care either way, but I'm not sure about ncftpget, and I have no 
> idea for lynx and links.
> 
> Another random thought at 3 AM.  Don't give it too much stock.
> 
>   - bish



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:  Etnus, makers of TotalView, The best
thread debugger on the planet. Designed with thread debugging features
you've never dreamed of, try TotalView 6 free at www.etnus.com.
_______________________________________________
Cpan2rpm-general mailing list
Cpa...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cpan2rpm-general