[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Is sendfile all that sexy?
Followup to:  <>
By author: J Sloan <>
In newsgroup:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Of course, you may be right on wuftpd. It obviously wasn't designed with
> > security in mind, other alternatives may be better.
> I run proftpd on all my ftp servers - it's fast, configurable
> and can do all the tricks I need - even red hat seems to
> agree that proftpd is the way to go.
> Visit any red hat ftp site and they are running proftpd -
> So, why do they keep shipping us wu-ftpd instead?
> That really frosts me.

proftpd is not what you want for an FTP server whose main function is
*non-*anonymous access. It is very much written for the sole purpose
of being a great FTP server for a large anonymous FTP site. If you're
running a site large enough to matter, you can replace an RPM or two.

<> at work, <> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.077 / U:0.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site