Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: Re: Ideas on solving the file transfer problem
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:22:13 +0000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <jfa1i1$9n2$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <jev1nr$adj$1@speranza.aioe.org> <acidnWS6s8PCf4vSnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <jf9g7v$v4v$1@speranza.aioe.org> <un0hh7l9rfqg9bm4rqd5osc9po6q3ioa7t@4ax.com>
Reply-To: rui.maciel@gmail.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: AqItoBXOUTdaiWbH4r55cA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: KNode/4.7.3
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.programming:1245

Robert Wessel wrote:

> Binding to ports 20 and 21 is the least of the problems for an
> unprivileged FTP server.  The big problem is that most firewalls will
> never let that traffic in, so something like that won't happen without
> the cooperation of the network security crew.  

Domestic users tend to control their own firewalls.  Would they be affected 
by this?


> And given the
> prevalence of NAT, you have address and DNS issues as well (which are
> really more network issues).

DNS wouldn't be a problem, as domain names aren't exactly necessary.  NAT 
wouldn't be a bigger problem than it already is.


Rui Maciel