Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #10532
| From | Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Theads and FTP |
| Date | 2011-12-05 12:29 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <jbj2j8$mkd$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <5ltld7tfk710d84lkmv3rvcvd4g17bmak1@4ax.com> <NoRCq.5932$cN1.5824@newsfe12.iad> <5pdpd75pb28ukk68tlbo7q2kijec7d2tu2@4ax.com> |
On 12/5/2011 7:33 AM, Roedy Green wrote: > On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:14:21 -0800, Daniel Pitts > <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> wrote, quoted or indirectly > quoted someone who said : > >> Why not look up the RFC on the FTP protocol? > > Because they are written to impress rather than inform. It is far too > easy to misinterpret them. Most RFCs written nowadays are written with the mindset of detailing a protocol specification, and often include things like discussion on security impacts, i18n concerns, etc. Any modern RFC is pretty good about detailing how the protocol looks, although there are certainly cases where the real world doesn't agree with the RFC (e.g., active FTP frequently runs afoul of firewalls in practice, and the use of text transfers is questionable in practice). For the most important old protocols, there is often a large number of newer RFCs that update them with better support for security and i18n concerns. It also has been my experience as a major consumer of RFCs that the question of misinterpretation is not so much a result of RFC text being wrong but how to deal with idiot software that puts literal crap on the network in violation of RFCs--a casualty of server software playing the "be liberal in what you accept" game and accepting many things in pretty gross violation of the legal specifications, which people come to rely on. And lest you think that it's merely a case of "I'm not looking at the right RFCs", my experience comes heavily from an email/newsgroup background, so I wager that the RFCs I have to work with are probably among the most-heavily violated RFCs in existence. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Theads and FTP Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-12-03 20:31 -0800
Re: Theads and FTP Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2011-12-04 13:14 -0800
Re: Theads and FTP Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-04 22:06 -0500
Re: Theads and FTP Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-12-05 14:58 +0000
Re: Theads and FTP Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-05 22:01 -0500
Re: Theads and FTP Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-12-06 21:07 +0000
Re: Theads and FTP Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-12-05 05:33 -0800
Re: Theads and FTP Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2011-12-05 09:29 -0800
Re: Theads and FTP Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-12-05 12:29 -0600
Re: Theads and FTP Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-12-06 11:28 -0600
Re: Theads and FTP Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-05 22:00 -0500
Re: Theads and FTP Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-12-06 22:16 +0000
Re: Theads and FTP Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-04 22:04 -0500
csiph-web