https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63248
--- Comment #2 from Jaikiran Pai <[email protected]> --- I had a look at the patch and it looks mostly fine to me. Except this bit: > + if (ftp.sendCommand("FEAT") != 211) { > + log("Failed to issue Feat Command: ", Project.MSG_WARN); I read the RFC for this command[1]. It states that: > Where a server-FTP process does not support the FEAT command, it will > respond to the FEAT command with a 500 or 502 reply. This is simply > the normal "unrecognized command" reply that any unknown command > would elicit. Errors in the command syntax, such as giving > parameters, will result in a 501 reply. > > Server-FTP processes that recognize the FEAT command, but implement > no extended features, and therefore have nothing to report, SHOULD > respond with the "no-features" 211 reply. However, as this case is > practically indistinguishable from a server-FTP that does not > recognize the FEAT command, a 500 or 502 reply MAY also be used. The > "no-features" reply MUST NOT use the multi-line response format, > exactly one response line is required and permitted. So based on that, a response code of 211 implies no-features. However, in the patch, the code expects a 211 response and only then considers the rest of the reply strings and prints them out. That looks wrong IMO. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2389 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
