On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, J Sloan wrote: > Res wrote: > > >On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, joe wrote: > > > > > >>We were running proftpd and like it - but as it > >>turns out, vsftpd can do all the same tricks - > >> > >> > > > >Sure, but if you run 17 virtual ftp servers on one box thats 17 config > >files, pfft, thats goes backwards, not forwards, C.S.R's can not debug a > >customers conenction as theres no ftpwho, rate limiting some domains in > >only some directories or files but not others only is 4 line statement in > >proftpd. > > > > Yeah vsftpd is bare bones, but it does what is > needed - I do admit I'd love to have ftpwho > for vsftpd though... Thats anotehr thing, vsftpd seems unsupported, sure this Chris guy claims he might not respond to emails, but when you use lots of search engines hunting for answers, its all the same " will you at some time implmemt ftpwho?" and never an answers, not even to 3 emails I've sent, i mean how hard is to hit "Reply" and type "NO" and hit "Send" he must get hundreds of requests, surely a ditty on his web site saying " at this time I have no plans to introduce it" or " maybe in the next 15 years" > >True, the facts here on the hardware we run and for what purposes we need > >sendmail beats postfix. > > > > I'd be curious to know what you're doing with > sendmail that you don't think postfix can do - > its not a feature thing with me, I can do lots of stuff with sendmail without effort, it was system loading that saw me put sendmail on it, the postfix box was always high. > I'd love to know how you're doing it - my > guess would be something like activestate, > or some major milter hacking... See Jarods post...assumeing we both understood the question the way it was meant -- -Res lns01-wick-bne> ipfirewall addb reject all from aol.com to 0
