Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot

Tim Kosse <> Sun, 15 August 2010 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42A273A68D5 for <>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cr+Zx8Nfbw52 for <>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:198:200:5b7::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C54693A67EE for <>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1Okklg-0006iL-9B; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:29:25 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:29:07 +0200
From: Tim Kosse <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anthony Bryan <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigDFB84DA11F26BE61E503DD20"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:29:31 -0000

On 2010-08-11 03:31, Anthony Bryan wrote:
>> If we look at 4.1.5 then we have an idea of what RFC 1123 is trying
>> to say and perhaps compare that to the post Oct 1989 outcome:  Have
>> implementations of the succeeding decade adopted any of that.
> can some implementors chime in?

I have been aware of RFC 1123 but haven't taken it much into
consideration when implementing FileZilla (Server).

Most of the points from RFC 1123 either were irrelevant for the
implementation (e.g., ...) or were already a
well-established best-practice most if not all popular implementations
implicitly adhere to (e.g.,

Even though rare, there are still clients out there that use commands
like XCWD ( and TYPE L 8 ( It appears that mostly
(only?) legacy mainframe systems are using these commands, I haven't
actually seen these commands being used by any modern client.

Personally I would gladly see some parts of FTP obsoleted with other
parts updated.

Without going into the details too much, I would like to obsolete the
- All TYPEs other than I and A
- All MODES other than S (while the proposed MODE Z is a nice idea, I
don't think it is relevant anymore, internet bandwidth has increased
substantially since the first MODE Z draft was introduced)
- All STRUs other than F and the related SNMT command
- Telnet IP and Synch signals
- XCWD and related commands

On the updated part I would like to see
- Mandatory UTF-8 support
- Mandatory MLSD
- Mandatory TVFS would be nice

While it would definitely break compatibility with old implementations,
it would greatly simplify the protocol. I wonder if it is even possible
or desired to change FTP in such a drastic way or if that is a clear no-go.