On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Martin Husemann 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.
> 
> > 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".

I use ipf on netbsd-current without ftp-proxy and ftp active/passive works 
fine.
I also use pf on netbsd-current on another system and i do use ftp-proxy
with it and it works nicely and fast.
But that's just my experience, on OpenBSD there some ppl who don't like
ftp-proxy as well and use ftpsesame instead.
I don't know how it behaves on sparc/sparc64. :-(
Bye,

Mipam.