Re: [Bug-wget] New option "--no-list-a"

[Andrea Urbani]

Hello Tim,

if you try to connect to ftp.freebsd.org and you ask for "LIST" you will get

drwxrwxr-x 3 110 1002 512 Oct 23 2006 pub

if you ask for "LIST -a" you will get

drwxrwxr-x 3 110 1002 512 Aug 24 2006 .
drwxrwxr-x 3 110 1002 512 Aug 24 2006 ..
drwxrwxr-x 3 110 1002 512 Oct 23 2006 pub

If I remember right connecting to a CNC machine via FTP the LIST command didn't 
show enough information (i.e. date time missing) but using "LIST -a" the list 
was complete.
If you or anybody else needs to know exactly the FTP software (name+version) or 
the OS running on that machine I need time (the CNC machine is not connected 
over Internet). Just ask me, if it is important, and I will activate to find 
these information.

Bye
Andrea
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Ruehsen
Sent: 08/30/13 11:30 AM
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Bug-wget] New option "--no-list-a"

> I'm not convinced that creating a new option is the solution. > I would 
> prefer that if the first LIST -a returns an empty list, it > retries just 
> with LIST to detect if it's a server without this > (which is likely, we 
> don't even have . and ..) > > Naturally, if there ever was a working LIST -a 
> *or* LIST worked but LIST > -a failed, would be remembered for the following 
> requests to this host. Could you enlighten me about where '-a' comes from ? 
> RFC 959 is very clear that a param after LIST is either a filename or a 
> directory name. I just tested two ftp servers, that I have access to: First 
> server: LIST -a returns an empty list (correct, since there is no file named 
> '-a') LIST returns the directory listing Second server: LIST -a returns the 
> directory listing, but LIST -b or LIST -x also do the same. (IMHO not 100% 
> correct, request for a non-existing file will be answered by the full 
> directory listing. But acceptable.) LIST returns the directory listing Are 
> there servers that really respect 'LIST -a' as a Unix 'ls -a' pendant ? Even 
> if they exists, what do they do with a plain 'LIST' ? What I want to figure 
> out: is Wgets current behaviour ('LIST -a' first, 'LIST' second on error) 
> really more helpful than a RFC compliant 'LIST' only ? Maybe these 
> non-compliant FTP servers already died out ? Or they have a fingerprint 
> (220...) that we could identify them ? Regards, Tim