Re: Mozilla (et al.) v. TCPIP FTP server - VMS

This is a discussion on Re: Mozilla (et al.) v. TCPIP FTP server - VMS ; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) > In article , JF Mezei writes: > > Steven M. Schweda wrote: > [...] > >> ftp> get ^._mozilla^.com.7 > >> local: ^._mozilla^.com.7 remote: ^._mozilla^.com.7 > >> 229 Entering Extended Passive Mode (|||50594|) > >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: Mozilla (et al.) v. TCPIP FTP server

  1. Re: Mozilla (et al.) v. TCPIP FTP server

    From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)

    > In article <4805ab58$0$7269$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    > > Steven M. Schweda wrote:

    > [...]
    > >> ftp> get ^._mozilla^.com.7
    > >> local: ^._mozilla^.com.7 remote: ^._mozilla^.com.7
    > >> 229 Entering Extended Passive Mode (|||50594|)
    > >> 550-Failed to open USRDIR:[JFMEZEI]^^^._mozilla^^.com;7 for input.
    > >> 550 file not found


    > Have you tried this against any other FTP server, or just HP's?


    I've tried only HP's. I find it difficult to imagine that any other
    FTP server on the planet would fail to accept a file name which that FTP
    server itself supplied, but I'm always open to a good counter-example.
    (Having dealt with HP's product since a brief experiment back around UCX
    V2.0, I could pretty easily believe that it was possible for _it_ to
    have _any_ particular problem, no matter how unlikely it might seem.)

    SMS.

  2. Re: Mozilla (et al.) v. TCPIP FTP server

    Steven M. Schweda wrote:
    > From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)
    >
    >
    >>In article <4805ab58$0$7269$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >>
    >>>Steven M. Schweda wrote:

    >>
    >>[...]
    >>
    >>>>ftp> get ^._mozilla^.com.7
    >>>>local: ^._mozilla^.com.7 remote: ^._mozilla^.com.7
    >>>>229 Entering Extended Passive Mode (|||50594|)
    >>>>550-Failed to open USRDIR:[JFMEZEI]^^^._mozilla^^.com;7 for input.
    >>>>550 file not found

    >
    >
    >> Have you tried this against any other FTP server, or just HP's?

    >
    >
    > I've tried only HP's. I find it difficult to imagine that any other
    > FTP server on the planet would fail to accept a file name which that FTP
    > server itself supplied, but I'm always open to a good counter-example.
    > (Having dealt with HP's product since a brief experiment back around UCX
    > V2.0, I could pretty easily believe that it was possible for _it_ to
    > have _any_ particular problem, no matter how unlikely it might seem.)
    >
    > SMS.


    I think Bob's intended comparison was not to other FTP servers on other
    platforms, but to other FTP servers on VMS, i.e. Multinet, TCPware, and
    HGFTP. Do any or all of those work correctly? (This is a rhetorical
    question, you probably only have HP's server. But if HGFTP works, you
    can install it on any of the VMS TCP/IP stacks. I will try it later when
    I have a few minutes, if no one else pops in with the answers.)


    --
    John Santos
    Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    781-861-0670 ext 539

+ Reply to Thread