Subject: RE: wuftpd falling over

From: "Roger A. Hanke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:08:49 -0400

Chris and Alain,
 A number of the list people seem to be running high volume FTP servers.
Since the browser clients have become quite popular, I am confused why
this is not regarded as a very serious problem by more people? Perhaps
some of these servers are getting these fcntl error messages and the
admins just havent noticed yet (users didnt complain possibly)? It sounds
as if after the lock attempt fails the server sleeps and retries. Perhaps
in most cases this succeeds so that users just see a slight delay and
therefore dont report a problem?

Alain has your patch to have WUFTPD stop after 300 iterations been 
sent to Stan? It sounds like there is no reason to ever let it loop beyond
some number. As usual would be nice to have this number tuneable
somehow.

 	Roger Hanke

----------

---

From: Alain Magloire <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 12:42:35 -0400 (EDT)

Bonjour Roger

> this is not regarded as a very serious problem by more people?

Probably must of them, after a few seconds will do the
'stop/reload' sequence.

> sent to Stan?

Heuuu, no. 
I'll forward something to Mr Barber next week :-) .. hopefully

> As usual would be nice to have this number tuneable somehow.

hmm .. you mean like in ftpaccess or a compile #define ?
the later is much simpler :-)

I'm still very curious to hear about Chris approach
Hello !! Chris ?? coucou c'est moi !

-- 
au revoir, alain
----
Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Brown)
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 13:54:14 -0700 (PDT)

...

> I'll forward something to Mr Barber next week :-) .. hopefully

...

> Hello !! Chris ?? coucou c'est moi !

Oui, Oui, Oui, Je sui ici!  I somehow doubt my changes will go into a beta
since Stan is trying to make a 2.5 release, but I am working on 'em.  Gimme
some time, I have a full+ time job and I don't get that much time for hobby
programming.

Chris...

P.S. I appoligize for the poor french :)

---

From: Emil Isberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 15:24:32 +0200 (MET DST)

I was wondering what you would think about adding an option to the
FTP .. I don't know how to really put it .. but I'll try ..

when the client connects to a server it issues `CRYPT <type>'
the server can then respond in several ways:
 * the server doesn't know about `CRYPT'
500 'CRYPT <type>': command not understood.
 * the server understands but don't know about <type>
500 'CRYPT <type>': type not understood.
 * the server understands but would want another type.
500 'CRYPT <type>': use <type> instead.
 * the server accepts that it hereby will send in crypt (by <type>)
200 crypt set to <type>.

if the client get that it couldn't run with crypt (either that the server
didn't know about crypt .. or the client didn't find a <type> that the
server accepted) it would put out a message stating: "Couldn't run secure,
reverting to insecure method." and follow the old ftp without more
complains.

if the client understands that the server will run crypt, it decrypt
everything gotten from the ftpserver (in both connections) ..

the server should send everything (even the error messages) in cryp ..

So what does you say?

Is this good and should someone talk to (for instance) the ssh team to
implement some of those types into wu-ftpd, or should I forget all about
this?

/Emil