[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
RE: [gftp] Problem with gftp
Well unfortunately as a user of FTP you are required to make a couple of
management decisions per the protocol. GFTP isn't a "front-end" for the
ftp command it's a full fledged ftp/ftps/ssh/http/https/fsp client
supporting far more protocols and features than the basic netkit ftp
client included in most distributions. Which still requires you to
switch to PASV mode (using that command) if it is required.
As far as "passive" file transfers goes, that was added to the FTP spec
as a later addition due to the popularity of firewalls that would block
incoming connection requests from the server. FTP uses multiple port
connections per the protocol. Passive and Active modes define the ways
in which those connections are made. In Active the client opens a port
and waits for the server to connect to it (impossible through many
firewalls). In Passive the server opens a port and waits for the client
to connect (also impossible if the SERVER is behind a firewall).
Some commercial routers support ftp in such a way that they actually
listen to the PASV commands and can parse the port number and
automagically forward that to the server/client machine. If they do not
support that you will need to forward all possible PASV ports to your
machine through the router and setup the server to only use those port
Problems mostly arise when both ftp client and server are behind
firewalls not setup correctly for FTP. Either you or the server needs
to be able to get connections on random ports. Usually the server does
this since most clients don't allow you to define what ports PASV mode
will use so it's harder to forward those in the router.
The "Ignore PASV address" is needed if the server on the other end isn't
giving out the routers public IP address and is using an internal
address. That's a feature netkit ftp doesn't have and is required for
dumb servers hiding behind firewalls.
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:16 -0400, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> As a user, the less I have to 'manage' the better. The idea behind why I
> used gftp is that it's an 'easy' front end for 'ftp' which otherwise has a
> text interface and limited ease of use. If I suddenly have to manage things
> then that whole 'easy' benefit goes away.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gftp-users@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gftp-users@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Brad Rogers
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 2:11 PM
> To: gftp-users@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gftp] Problem with gftp
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 01:02:03 +0800 (WST)
> Bret Busby <bret@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Bret,
> > The log file that you named, lists only the two times that I found and
> > tried to list the logging (in the gftp menu's; Logging->View log), it
> > shows each instance as displaying and clearing the logfile which has
> > as part of its name, a sessionID.
> I hadn't realised that the log expired each session, sorry. It's a pity
> that the log size can't be user set and rolled through, I agree.
> Regards _
> / ) "The blindingly obvious is
> / _)rad never immediately apparent"
> Where will you be when the bodies burn?
> The Gasman Cometh - Crass