Outbound port on sockets
grahn+nntp at snipabacken.dyndns.org
Sun Sep 17 10:16:37 CEST 2006
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:21:39 +0200, Fredrik Lundh <fredrik at pythonware.com> wrote:
> bmearns wrote:
> (and before you proceed, reading
> 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 Grahn <grahn@ Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu
\X/ snipabacken.dyndns.org> R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
More information about the Python-list