You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2009/07/14 02:28:53 UTC
FTP open questions
Just finished the last showstopper. I would be happy to advance this
to release / general availability vote with the next release, if we can
determine just a few oddball issue resolutions. Jim and I have already
gone ahead and moved many internal interfaces out of the private headers,
which was my motivation for holding off a year ago.
Should we advertise the commands we have not implemented, or remove them?
Should we alert the user to the ServerAdmin address in the HELP contents?
Right now HELP offers up;
214-The following commands are recognized (* =>'s unimplemented).
FEAT TYPE RMD QUIT RNTO PORT *MODE APPE
*ALLO STOR PWD *STOU *REIN AUTH MDTM SYST
XMKD *SITE XCWD PASS PASV DELE *ACCT EPRT
SIZE XRMD NOOP LIST REST PBSZ XCUP NLST
*SMNT XPWD ABOR PROT HELP CDUP *STRU RNFR
MKD *STAT RETR CWD EPSV USER
214 Direct comments to [no address given]
Just for reference, three popular linux servers respond with no
unimplemented features, one offers "Direct comments to" admin address,
one offers the website address of it's project, and one just ends with
the result "Help OK"
The admin has little control over which commands are supported (although
which commands are -allowed- is another matter entirely :) So it just
strikes me as odd to direct comments with respect to the HELP inquiry.
Re: FTP open questions
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 13, 2009, at 8:28 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Just finished the last showstopper. I would be happy to advance this
> to release / general availability vote with the next release, if we
> can
> determine just a few oddball issue resolutions. Jim and I have
> already
> gone ahead and moved many internal interfaces out of the private
> headers,
> which was my motivation for holding off a year ago.
>
> Should we advertise the commands we have not implemented, or remove
> them?
>
+1 for keeping as is.
> Should we alert the user to the ServerAdmin address in the HELP
> contents?
>
+1
> Right now HELP offers up;
>
> 214-The following commands are recognized (* =>'s unimplemented).
> FEAT TYPE RMD QUIT RNTO PORT *MODE APPE
> *ALLO STOR PWD *STOU *REIN AUTH MDTM SYST
> XMKD *SITE XCWD PASS PASV DELE *ACCT EPRT
> SIZE XRMD NOOP LIST REST PBSZ XCUP NLST
> *SMNT XPWD ABOR PROT HELP CDUP *STRU RNFR
> MKD *STAT RETR CWD EPSV USER
> 214 Direct comments to [no address given]
>
> Just for reference, three popular linux servers respond with no
> unimplemented features, one offers "Direct comments to" admin address,
> one offers the website address of it's project, and one just ends with
> the result "Help OK"
>
> The admin has little control over which commands are supported
> (although
> which commands are -allowed- is another matter entirely :) So it just
> strikes me as odd to direct comments with respect to the HELP inquiry.
>
Re: FTP open questions
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Jul 14, 2009, at 8:02 AM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:28 AM, William A. Rowe,
>> Should we advertise the commands we have not implemented, or remove
>> them?
> Yes, It's always useful to know for a more advance user.
+1 on keeping them.
>> Should we alert the user to the ServerAdmin address in the HELP
>> contents?
> Maybe reuse ServerTokens for this?
Elegant!
S.
--
Sander Temme
sctemme@apache.org
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: FTP open questions
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:28 AM, William A. Rowe,
Jr.<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Just finished the last showstopper. I would be happy to advance this
> to release / general availability vote with the next release, if we can
> determine just a few oddball issue resolutions. Jim and I have already
> gone ahead and moved many internal interfaces out of the private headers,
> which was my motivation for holding off a year ago.
>
> Should we advertise the commands we have not implemented, or remove them?
Yes, It's always useful to know for a more advance user.
>
> Should we alert the user to the ServerAdmin address in the HELP contents?
Maybe reuse ServerTokens for this?
Full/OS => serveradmin + unimplemented commands
Minimal => unimplemented commands
Minor => only list implemented commands
Major => only list allowed commands
Prod => no help?
That way the server admin still has a say in it?
Not sure the extra coding is worth it though.
>
> Right now HELP offers up;
>
> 214-The following commands are recognized (* =>'s unimplemented).
> FEAT TYPE RMD QUIT RNTO PORT *MODE APPE
> *ALLO STOR PWD *STOU *REIN AUTH MDTM SYST
> XMKD *SITE XCWD PASS PASV DELE *ACCT EPRT
> SIZE XRMD NOOP LIST REST PBSZ XCUP NLST
> *SMNT XPWD ABOR PROT HELP CDUP *STRU RNFR
> MKD *STAT RETR CWD EPSV USER
> 214 Direct comments to [no address given]
>
> Just for reference, three popular linux servers respond with no
> unimplemented features, one offers "Direct comments to" admin address,
> one offers the website address of it's project, and one just ends with
> the result "Help OK"
>
> The admin has little control over which commands are supported (although
> which commands are -allowed- is another matter entirely :) So it just
> strikes me as odd to direct comments with respect to the HELP inquiry.
>
>