ftp

ftp

Post by James Bradl » Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:34:10



Hello Everyone (and top of the season!):

Sorry, but I'm *so* new to networking I just *know* I missed something
basic. I mounted a drive on a proftp server with limited success. The FAQ
told me to:  

mount -Flofs /dev/sda1  /home/ftp/raid

Owner is root, and group is ftp, rwx on both r to others with x on the
directories as near as I have seen. The listing shows up, but with
"wget -r addy/*", one file arrives as a broken (something). I can get to
each file with Firefox, where it identifies them as binary and offers to
save them. (One *y file at a time!) They arrive a little smaller, as if
I was making an ASCII transfer. <?> Digging through documents on the Inet
takes some effort for me, but I haven't seem anything with the distributed
pages so far. Where might I be going wrong?  

... James
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.49

 
 
 

ftp

Post by Bill Marcu » Wed, 22 Dec 2010 05:51:35



Quote:> Hello Everyone (and top of the season!):

> Sorry, but I'm *so* new to networking I just *know* I missed something
> basic. I mounted a drive on a proftp server with limited success. The FAQ
> told me to:  

> mount -Flofs /dev/sda1  /home/ftp/raid

> Owner is root, and group is ftp, rwx on both r to others with x on the
> directories as near as I have seen. The listing shows up, but with
> "wget -r addy/*", one file arrives as a broken (something). I can get to
> each file with Firefox, where it identifies them as binary and offers to
> save them. (One *y file at a time!) They arrive a little smaller, as if
> I was making an ASCII transfer. <?> Digging through documents on the Inet
> takes some effort for me, but I haven't seem anything with the distributed
> pages so far. Where might I be going wrong?  

I don't know what a broken (something) is. If you transfer files between
two Linux or Unix hosts, it doesn't matter whether you use binary or ascii
mode. Whatever the problem is, maybe it would help if you stored the files
as zip or tar.gz archives.

--
A bureaucracy's success is determined by its rebels.

 
 
 

ftp

Post by Owen Ree » Wed, 22 Dec 2010 09:26:28




Quote:>Hello Everyone (and top of the season!):

>Sorry, but I'm *so* new to networking I just *know* I missed something
>basic. I mounted a drive on a proftp server with limited success. The FAQ
>told me to:  

>mount -Flofs /dev/sda1  /home/ftp/raid

Are you sure it says that in the FAQ? I believe that -Flofs is a Solaris
feature that does not work on Linux. On what O/S are you running the
server?

Also, if you mean to use a loopback mount you specify a directory, not a
device.

What are you actually trying to do here?

Quote:

>Owner is root, and group is ftp, rwx on both r to others with x on the
>directories as near as I have seen. The listing shows up, but with
>"wget -r addy/*", one file arrives as a broken (something). I can get to
>each file with Firefox, where it identifies them as binary and offers to
>save them. (One *y file at a time!) They arrive a little smaller, as if
>I was making an ASCII transfer. <?> Digging through documents on the Inet
>takes some effort for me, but I haven't seem anything with the distributed
>pages so far. Where might I be going wrong?  

You really need a dedicated ftp client if you want to check that you
have got your server configured correctly. The 'ftp' command line client
is easy enough to use and will give much better information about what
is going on.

--
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.veryComputer.com/~owenrees/index.html>

 
 
 

ftp

Post by James Bradl » Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:48:16


-=> Bill Marcum wrote to Gypsy BBS <=-



 >... on a proftp server:
 >
 > mount -Flofs /dev/sda1  /home/ftp/raid
 >
 > Owner is root, and group is ftp, rwx on both r to others with x on the
 > directories as near as I have seen. The listing shows up, but with
 > "wget -r addy/*", one file arrives as a broken (something). I can get to
 > each file with Firefox, where it identifies them as binary and offers to
 > save them. (One *y file at a time!) They arrive a little smaller, as if
 > I was making an ASCII transfer. <?> ...
 >
 BM> I don't know what a broken (something) is. If you transfer files

You and me both. <Sheepish G> "name.part" I think. [Firing up the client
now]

Huh... Now wget worked. <?> I have a litter of broken links on my client to
the RAID drive that I mounted as noted above. Likely failed firefox
attempts? (Operator error likely.) Time for me to take a step back. This
hard link business seems to have flushed itself out, but how it worked this
time and not last....  

Hard linking to a drive is pretty standard stuff for an ftp server, isn't
it and subsequently, where would a guy stick *this* mount command? fstab as
usual I suspect?

 BM> between two Linux or Unix hosts, it doesn't matter whether you use
 BM> binary or ascii mode. Whatever the problem is, maybe it would help if
 BM> you stored the files as zip or tar.gz archives.

Novel idea, but a little cumbersome. The tarball will be a good fallback
should the need arise. <scratching head> Thanks for your time, and sorry
for not knowing what in the hills I am doing. <D+R>

 BM> --
 BM> A bureaucracy's success is determined by its rebels.

 BM> --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 BM>  * Origin: Calgary Organization CDN Fidonet-Internet Gateway
 BM> (1:342/77.10)

... I think I can! I think I can! Therefore, I might be a locomotive?
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.49

 
 
 

ftp

Post by Owen Ree » Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:48:58




Quote:>Huh... Now wget worked. <?> I have a litter of broken links on my client to
>the RAID drive that I mounted as noted above. Likely failed firefox
>attempts? (Operator error likely.) Time for me to take a step back. This
>hard link business seems to have flushed itself out, but how it worked this
>time and not last....  

You do not have a hard link.

You appear to have attempted to mount a device but using the Solaris
loopback file system options - if the options are ignored or interpreted
differently (assuming that this is Linux) then that sounds like a really
bad idea to me since it looks like the device that would normally be
mounted at '/' on a Linux system (but perhaps using a UID in fstab). You
may find that you have the same device mounted twice at two points in
your file system - that sounds at best confusing to me and I would not
be surprised if it corrupted the file system(s).

Quote:

>Hard linking to a drive is pretty standard stuff for an ftp server, isn't
>it and subsequently, where would a guy stick *this* mount command? fstab as
>usual I suspect?

If you set up your FTP server to use chroot to keep different users
apart and also need to have some or all users share a common directory
then a loopback mount (which is *not* a hard link) is a conventional
technique. If you adopt this approach then you must use the options
appropriate to the O/S - the Solaris option for this does not work on
Linux and vice-versa.

If, as the mount command suggests, you intent is to make your root
directory acessible via FTP then there is no need for that complexity.
It is much easier and the intent is clearer if you just disable the
security features in the FTP server configuration. If you really want to
open up your system to be totally taken over by anyone who can access it
via FTP then nobody can stop you but I think it is a really bad idea.

--
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

 
 
 

ftp

Post by James Bradl » Sat, 01 Jan 2011 08:57:02


-=> Owen Rees wrote to Gypsy BBS <=-




RE: mount -Flofs /home/data2 /ftp/data2

 >Huh... Now wget worked. <?> I have a litter of broken links on my client to
 >the RAID drive that I mounted as noted above. [...]

 OR> You do not have a hard link.

Oh, I likely do. <sheepish-G> I was out-a bullets, so I started throwing
the guns at it.

 OR> You appear to have attempted to mount a device but using the Solaris
 OR> loopback file system options - if the options are ignored or
 OR> interpreted differently (assuming that this is Linux) then that sounds

Ya, Slack 13.0. I guess the proftp FAQ was written for Solaris?

 OR> like a really bad idea to me since it looks like the device that would
 OR> normally be mounted at '/' on a Linux system (but perhaps using a UID
 OR> in fstab). You may find that you have the same device mounted twice at
 OR> two points in your file system - that sounds at best confusing to me
 OR> and I would not be surprised if it corrupted the file system(s).

/dev/sda1        /mnt/raid        ext3        defaults         1   2
#/dev/sda1 /home/ftp/raid ext3  defaults 0 0

Shoot... I could have simplified and just mounted it to to /ftp! <thump
head>
 >
 >Hard linking to a drive is pretty standard stuff for an ftp server, isn't
 >it and subsequently, where would a guy stick *this* mount command? fstab as
 >usual I suspect?

 OR> If you set up your FTP server to use chroot to keep different users
 OR> apart and also need to have some or all users share a common directory
 OR> then a loopback mount (which is *not* a hard link) is a conventional
 OR> technique. If you adopt this approach then you must use the options
 OR> appropriate to the O/S - the Solaris option for this does not work on
 OR> Linux and vice-versa.

 OR> If, as the mount command suggests, you intent is to make your root
 OR> directory acessible via FTP then there is no need for that complexity.
 OR> It is much easier and the intent is clearer if you just disable the
 OR> security features in the FTP server configuration. If you really want
 OR> to open up your system to be totally taken over by anyone who can
 OR> access it via FTP then nobody can stop you but I think it is a really
 OR> bad idea.

Thanks MUCH, Owen. Lots to learn!

As you can tell, sda1 is mounted in /mnt. As I'm not (yet) exposed, I
haven't paid too much attention to the points you mentioned. "The times
they are a-changin'." <Cha-G>

 OR> --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 OR>  * Origin: Calgary Organization CDN Fidonet-Internet Gateway
 OR> (1:342/77.10)

... "May the centripetal force be with you." --Ratt, Lester
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.49

 
 
 

ftp

Post by Sidney Lamb » Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:12:02



Yet another post so poorly-formatted that it's painful to attempt
to read.

Whovever the sysadmin at this bulletin board is, he's incompetent.

[delete]

Sid

 
 
 

ftp

Post by Owen Ree » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 08:19:33




Quote:>-=> Owen Rees wrote to Gypsy BBS <=-

Actually I posted to the comp.os.linux.networking newsgroup...




>RE: mount -Flofs /home/data2 /ftp/data2

Presumably a reference to section 12 of
http://www.proftpd.org/docs/faq/linked/faq-ch5.html
where it says "or (on Solaris) using lofs to mount the directory via the
loopback" and then gives two example commands.

In the original post, the command quoted was:

  mount -Flofs /dev/sda1  /home/ftp/raid

Note in particular that in the Solaris loopback mount /home/data2 is a
directory but in the one above, /dev/sda1 is a block special device.

Quote:

> >Huh... Now wget worked. <?> I have a litter of broken links on my client to
> >the RAID drive that I mounted as noted above. [...]

> OR> You do not have a hard link.

>Oh, I likely do. <sheepish-G> I was out-a bullets, so I started throwing
>the guns at it.

Do you know what a hard link is? The mount command does not create hard
links. Your mention of hard links was in the part that you have not
quoted (in the [...]) and my response was to that and not to the
reference to "broken links on the client" which seems to me to be a
reference to a web hyperlink which is an entirely different thing.

Quote:

> OR> You appear to have attempted to mount a device but using the Solaris
> OR> loopback file system options - if the options are ignored or
> OR> interpreted differently (assuming that this is Linux) then that sounds

>Ya, Slack 13.0. I guess the proftp FAQ was written for Solaris?

The ProFTPD FAQ appears to have been written for people who have some
understanding of the administration of Unix-like systems and the
terminology involved. In particular, I can see that the section cited
above could be confusing to someone who does not already know about hard
links for files, why hard links for directories should be avoided, and
what a loopback mount is. http://www.proftpd.org/docs/howto/Chroot.html
is rather more explicit about the topic.

Quote:

> OR> like a really bad idea to me since it looks like the device that would
> OR> normally be mounted at '/' on a Linux system (but perhaps using a UID
> OR> in fstab). You may find that you have the same device mounted twice at
> OR> two points in your file system - that sounds at best confusing to me
> OR> and I would not be surprised if it corrupted the file system(s).

>/dev/sda1        /mnt/raid        ext3        defaults         1   2
>#/dev/sda1 /home/ftp/raid ext3  defaults 0 0

>Shoot... I could have simplified and just mounted it to to /ftp! <thump
>head>

If you wish to dedicate the whole of the file system on the /dev/sda1
device for use by anonymous FTP then that has some merit - but it would
be /home/ftp if you use the conventional FTP server configuration.

Since you seen to be suggesting that /dev/sda1 (containing an ext3 file
system) is being mounted at /mnt/raid I assume that, unlike my Linux
system, yours has its root file system on some other device.

Quote:

> >Hard linking to a drive is pretty standard stuff for an ftp server, isn't
> >it and subsequently, where would a guy stick *this* mount command? fstab as
> >usual I suspect?

> OR> If you set up your FTP server to use chroot to keep different users
> OR> apart and also need to have some or all users share a common directory
> OR> then a loopback mount (which is *not* a hard link) is a conventional
> OR> technique. If you adopt this approach then you must use the options
> OR> appropriate to the O/S - the Solaris option for this does not work on
> OR> Linux and vice-versa.

> OR> If, as the mount command suggests, you intent is to make your root
> OR> directory acessible via FTP then there is no need for that complexity.
> OR> It is much easier and the intent is clearer if you just disable the
> OR> security features in the FTP server configuration. If you really want
> OR> to open up your system to be totally taken over by anyone who can
> OR> access it via FTP then nobody can stop you but I think it is a really
> OR> bad idea.

>Thanks MUCH, Owen. Lots to learn!

>As you can tell, sda1 is mounted in /mnt. As I'm not (yet) exposed, I
>haven't paid too much attention to the points you mentioned. "The times
>they are a-changin'." <Cha-G>

One very important thing to learn is the terminology. It is very hard to
look things up if you do not know the conventional names and it is easy
to misunderstand the descriptions if you do not know the specific
meanings in the context. In particular "hard linking to a drive" is
pretty much meaningless which makes it a bit of a guessing game to work
out what you are trying to do.

Quote:> OR> --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
> OR>  * Origin: Calgary Organization CDN Fidonet-Internet Gateway
> OR> (1:342/77.10)

I did not write that :-)

--
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

 
 
 

ftp

Post by Sidney Lamb » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 08:46:48





>>-=> Owen Rees wrote to Gypsy BBS <=-

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

This fellow is looking to me to be a spammer. He's trying
to drum up people for his BBS (they died because they
have no purpose in the world of the modern Internet).

Who taught these BBS clowns how to format Usenet posts?

Bozo the Clown? Haven't these geniuses heard of the Usenet
and the NNTP?

[delete]

 
 
 

ftp

Post by James Bradl » Wed, 05 Jan 2011 05:34:06


-=> Owen Rees wrote to Bradley <=-



 >-=> Owen Rees wrote to Gypsy BBS <=-

 OR> Actually I posted to the comp.os.linux.networking newsgroup...

Long story. I use a BBS-gate to do this. This OLMR treats the quoting as if
you posted to a fido "echo" so indirectly, you wrote (eventually) to Gypsy.
I hope to work on the soupgate configuration soon, but I first want to try
another OLMR. (PS: Sidney Lamb/Alan Connor/Whatever you call yourself,
nobody but the uninitiated gives a snot what you think about *ANYTHING!*
Call yo'moma. She needs to know what kinda weasel she raised.)




 >
 >RE: mount -Flofs /home/data2 /ftp/data2
...
 OR> In the original post, the command quoted was:

 OR>   mount -Flofs /dev/sda1  /home/ftp/raid

That's what (eventually) got the job done. Yes, I already had /dev/sda1
mounted through fstab, then I tried the above on a CL. I was pretty foggy
by the time I reached that point in the document and now see the folly to it.

 OR> Note in particular that in the Solaris loopback mount /home/data2 is a
 OR> directory but in the one above, /dev/sda1 is a block special device.

A little ignorance goes a *long* way. <sheepish>
...
 OR> Do you know what a hard link is? The mount command does not create hard
 OR> links. Your mention of hard links was in the part that you have not
 OR> quoted (in the [...]) and my response was to that and not to the
 OR> reference to "broken links on the client" which seems to me to be a
 OR> reference to a web hyperlink which is an entirely different thing.

The hard link was my first tentative steps to link the /mnt/raid directory
into /home/ftp. I can see how my head was clouding my typing. Sorry 'bout
that. To clarify, linking (soft or hard) is meant for individual files
only? But /dev seems full of links to block devices.  <?>
...
 OR> The ProFTPD FAQ appears to have been written for people who have some
 OR> understanding of the administration of Unix-like systems and the
 OR> terminology involved. In particular, I can see that the section cited
 OR> above could be confusing to someone who does not already know about
 OR> hard links for files, why hard links for directories should be avoided,
 OR> and what a loopback mount is.
 OR> http://www.proftpd.org/docs/howto/Chroot.html is rather more explicit
 OR> about the topic.

Cheers! "Sent it off in a letter to myself." (No local I-net yet.)
...
 > I could have simplified and just mounted it to to /ftp! <thump head>

 OR> If you wish to dedicate the whole of the file system on the /dev/sda1
 OR> device for use by anonymous FTP then that has some merit - but it would
 OR> be /home/ftp if you use the conventional FTP server configuration.

 OR> Since you seen to be suggesting that /dev/sda1 (containing an ext3 file
 OR> system) is being mounted at /mnt/raid I assume that, unlike my Linux
 OR> system, yours has its root file system on some other device.

Ya, I boot from a PATA drive, and the RAID is used for media throughput. As
I posted, I'm not connected to anything but other machines inside my house,
and a BBS. That is about to expand soon, so I'll have lots of reading to do
to button things up. I'll keep one machine isolated (inside the house) to
the internet until I can work some shorewall magic into the mix.
 > >
 > >Hard linking to a drive is pretty standard stuff for an ftp server, isn't
 > >it and subsequently, where would a guy stick *this* mount command? fstab as
 > >usual I suspect?
 >
 > OR> If you set up your FTP server to use chroot to keep different users
 > OR> apart and also need to have some or all users share a common directory
 > OR> then a loopback mount (which is *not* a hard link) is a conventional
 > OR> technique. If you adopt this approach then you must use the options
 > OR> appropriate to the O/S - the Solaris option for this does not work on
 > OR> Linux and vice-versa.
 >
 > OR> If, as the mount command suggests, you intent is to make your root
 > OR> directory acessible via FTP then there is no need for that complexity.
 > OR> It is much easier and the intent is clearer if you just disable the
 > OR> security features in the FTP server configuration. If you really want
 > OR> to open up your system to be totally taken over by anyone who can
 > OR> access it via FTP then nobody can stop you but I think it is a really
 > OR> bad idea.
 >
 >Thanks MUCH, Owen. Lots to learn!
 >
 >As you can tell, sda1 is mounted in /mnt. As I'm not (yet) exposed, I
 >haven't paid too much attention to the points you mentioned. "The times
 >they are a-changin'." <Cha-G>

 OR> One very important thing to learn is the terminology. It is very hard
 OR> to look things up if you do not know the conventional names and it is
 OR> easy to misunderstand the descriptions if you do not know the specific
 OR> meanings in the context. In particular "hard linking to a drive" is
 OR> pretty much meaningless which makes it a bit of a guessing game to work
 OR> out what you are trying to do.

If you are as confused at what I was trying to do as I am, I guess I *did*
parlay my ignorance. <G>

Thanks again, Owen. As you've noticed, I have a *long* way to go. I'll get
there, but it'll take me a while.

 > OR> --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 > OR>  * Origin: Calgary Organization CDN Fidonet-Internet Gateway
 > OR> (1:342/77.10)

 OR> I did not write that :-)

Another artifact of the OLMR-BBS. The sysop prefers I keep it in, but he
can't *always* get it his way. <snicker>
 OR> --
 OR> Owen Rees
 OR> [one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
 OR> found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

... There is no substitute for a genuine lack of preparation.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.49

 
 
 

ftp

Post by James Bradl » Wed, 05 Jan 2011 05:38:08


-=> Sidney Lambe wrote to All <=-



 SL> Yet another post so poorly-formatted that it's painful to attempt
 SL> to read.

Who forces(/allows/pays) you to read it?

 SL> Whovever the sysadmin at this bulletin board is, he's incompetent.

We can't all be as smart (assed) as you, 'Cid.

 SL> [delete]

INDEED!

Now, go urinate up a rope and open your mouth.

... "A drop of honey gathers more flies than a watched pot." -Van, Billy
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.49

 
 
 

ftp

Post by Sidney Lamb » Sun, 09 Jan 2011 13:40:04


On comp.os.linux.networking, James Bradley wrote

[delete]

Your Subject line says Re: but there's no reference header.

One more time: You are on the Usenet, and the operative
protocol is NNTP.

Use it or * off.

I am not interested in the opinions of the most techologically
ignorant clown I have ever encountered.

No wonder you are using extinct software like BBS, which
weren't any good even in their brief and inglorious day.

Sid

 
 
 

ftp

Post by Jorgen Grah » Sun, 09 Jan 2011 18:44:48



> -=> Sidney Lambe wrote to All <=-




>  SL> Yet another post so poorly-formatted that it's painful to attempt
>  SL> to read.

> Who forces(/allows/pays) you to read it?

Ask yourself this instead: why do you think people will read your
postings, if you make them hard to read and ridicule those who point
it out?  *plonk*

/Jorgen

--

\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

 
 
 

1. Solaris ftp v Pro-ftp v WU-ftp

One-year newbie Solaris admin here. (And four yrs Linux experience extra,
does
that count extra credit?)

Management thinks they want an internet ftp server for the company.
Whatever,
they're mgt, and 'I serve at their pleasure'.. and paycheck. My questions:

1). why use a package like ProFTP or WU-ftp, instead of Solaris 2.6 ftp,
which
seems to me easy enough to use and cfg? (I'd ask them why, but that'd be
interpreted
as 'a bad thing'.)
2). which FTP is 'better'? I've heard of WU-ftp security holes, but am not
familiar
with Pro-FTP problems.
3). is there a better way to go?

I'm guessing this is for external customer browser convenience, which will
make me
RTFMs soon enough, yet any other comments, suggestions, or insights would be
appreciated. Thank you.

-fgz
(name alias and bogus email adrs to protect the guilty.)

2. Linux on DOS card of PowerMac

3. FTP: New Linux FTP site: ftp.kernel.org

4. 2.4.20-ck4

5. Secure ftp, ftp over stunnel og ftp-ssl.

6. Adaptec 1502 SCSI card under 2.0.27

7. How to connect to an FTP through an FTP-Proxy.

8. sendmail "Name Server Timeout" problem - please help

9. Can't ftp to Linux box from windows ftp client

10. make a character device /dev/ftp that do ftp

11. Problems with FTP (wu.ftp) HELP!

12. FTP: Looking for source code for FTP client program

13. how do I use the cern ftp proxy with non web ftp clients?