On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:28:08 +0200, Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:27:04PM -0400, Sean Davis wrote:
> > why hasn't <whatever change was made
> > to the ftp code> been reverted?
> 
> That's impractical. Fixing the bug will be easier.

well, I didn't mean revert everything, what I meant was more along the
lines of "if darren knew how to make it work then, why is it broken
now, and why can't he compare then and now to see what its doing
differently?"

> 
> > It seems to me that nobody is very
> > interested in fixing this, as (I guess) sparc/sparc64 isn't a popular
> > enough NAT platform for this to be biting more than a few people.
> 
> Looks more like a general big endian issue.
> 
> Most people don't use ftp proxy. In my experience it has always been
> unreliable and it was much easier to tell all clients "use pasive".

It was never unreliable for me until I tried it on a sparc64. I always
use passive, but suppose some application I don't have control over
(on windows, for example) wants active? the windows user (aka my
mother) will expect it to "just work," and it won't.

-- 
Sean