On 10/07/2017 04:58 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
There are still a number of important edge cases for which FTP is
superior to any other widely available protocol - wildcard transfers
of multiple files, text file transfers between systems with
different character encoding conventions, 3rd party mediated
transfers (used regularly in the broadcast TV industry where having
system A control moving of content from B to C is exactly what is
needed).
However FTP does look a bit antiquated by now - what with its
support for file and record types that are almost (but not quite)
entirely nonexistent on modern systems; a lot of implementations
sadly never figured out how to make it work through NAT [*] (or a
lot of ALGs in NAT didn't work right); and I have a hard time
recommending for widespread use any protocol that doesn't have
encryption as an ordinary, widely-implemented feature.
Exactly how I feel. Yes, it was state of the art in its day. It is not
state of the art now. I would like something better and as you point
out, the alternatives are not exactly great.
rsync works for synchronization, and subdirectories (and the IETF already has rsync available). And it can run with SSH.
-- Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US http://goo.gl/yrxJTu ) DouglasRoyer@xxxxxxxxx 714-989-6135
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>