Re: patch ftp-proxy, proposal

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Tiery DENYS
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 1:38 am

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Bob Beck <beck@ualberta.ca> wrote:


Yes I prefer waiting here instead of sending any response on ident port.
(silent fw)


This is not a good example,  I agree



I will not explain the benefit of dropping packets silently. This is
something we will not change, even if it is only for ident protocol.
The problem deals with public ftp servers, like university or other
research/company and we can't reconfigure them. If we keep in mind that our
firewall will always drop packets silently, there are not a lot of
solutions.
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
patch ftp-proxy, proposal, Tiery DENYS, (Thu Jan 7, 7:02 am)
Re: patch ftp-proxy, proposal, Tiery DENYS, (Mon Jan 11, 3:22 am)
Re: patch ftp-proxy, proposal, Bob Beck, (Mon Jan 11, 6:08 am)
Re: patch ftp-proxy, proposal, Tiery DENYS, (Tue Jan 12, 1:38 am)
Re: patch ftp-proxy, proposal, Paul de Weerd, (Tue Jan 12, 2:01 am)
Re: patch ftp-proxy, proposal, Tiery DENYS, (Tue Jan 12, 2:44 am)
Re: patch ftp-proxy, proposal, Henning Brauer, (Tue Jan 12, 3:38 am)
Re: patch ftp-proxy, proposal, Tiery DENYS, (Tue Jan 12, 5:31 am)
Re: patch ftp-proxy, proposal, Bob Beck, (Tue Jan 12, 7:41 am)