On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 20:15 +0000, John A Meinel wrote:
> It seems that the server is *supposed* to return a response code of 257, not 250.
> 250 Requested file action okay, completed.
> 257 "PATHNAME" created.
>
> According to:
> http://www.altools.com/image/support/alftp/ALFTP_35_help/FTP_response_codes_rfc_959_messages.htm
>
> We probably could trap and specifically allow 250. Otherwise it should
> be considered a bug in the Python standard library ftplib ftp
> processing.
Let me just say 'yay microsoft'. Recently we've had to add a workaround
to squid for microsoft violating RFC2616 as well on microsoft.com, so it
is no surprise to find this too.
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 20:15 +0000, John A Meinel wrote: www.altools. com/image/ support/ alftp/ALFTP_ 35_help/ FTP_response_ codes_rfc_ 959_messages. htm
> It seems that the server is *supposed* to return a response code of 257, not 250.
> 250 Requested file action okay, completed.
> 257 "PATHNAME" created.
>
> According to:
> http://
>
> We probably could trap and specifically allow 250. Otherwise it should
> be considered a bug in the Python standard library ftplib ftp
> processing.
Let me just say 'yay microsoft'. Recently we've had to add a workaround
to squid for microsoft violating RFC2616 as well on microsoft.com, so it
is no surprise to find this too.
-Rob www.robertcolli ns.net/ keys.txt>.
--
GPG key available at: <http://