On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> Actually it's the other way around now in SSH-2.4.0 -- scp is more of a
> wrapper around sftp (though it's not exactly that).
so you've said.. i'll have to look at it. :)
> any file. Furthermore it's much better do build one correct tool to do
> data conversions than to spread similar functionality amongst any number
> of other tools where it can only rot and/or diverge. Just because FTP
> did it doesn't mean it was the right way to do it (or even a good way to
> do it). Mistakes are best left in the past.
this is arguable. i still think the problem lay in calling the original
scp wrapper 'sftp.' if i were a true pedant, i'd go and look up the FTP
RFP to see if xlation is defined in it, but it doesn't really matter. :)
sftp is not ftp, it does not behave internally like ftp, and it is not
going to translate your line feeds for you.
i believe that the useage is defined by the users, and, as such, the users
are expecting and demanding cr/lf xlation in sftp. i don't care if it's a
mistake, and, obviously, they don't either. if someone wants it, they
should hack it in.
the important thing to me is getting people educated on this so that it
doesn't occupy the 50% of my mailbox not occupied daily by ssh-list
'unsubscribe' messages. :)
--
Blue Lang http://www.gator.net/~blue
202 Ashe Ave, Apt 3, Raleigh, NC. 919 835 1540
