[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Tim Ruehsen
Subject: Re: [Bug-wget] New option "--no-list-a"
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:30:54 +0200
User-agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.10-2-amd64; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; )

> 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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]