RE: V5R4 ftp anomaly

["Lapeyre, Francis" <FLAPEYRE@xxxxxxxx>]

Last week, I downloaded Scott Klement's FTPAPI routines, and I just went to
look at the source - looks like he's checking for both 226 and 250 in most
places. But for me, that's neither here nor there - mainly we use FTP to
talk to non-AS/400 boxes, anyway.

Francis Lapeyre
IS Dept. Programmer/Analyst
Stewart Enterprises, Inc.
E-mail: flapeyre@xxxxxxxx 



-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:23 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: V5R4 ftp anomaly

Good point.  "Real coders" should already be used to coding for both (and
perhaps more) anyway, right?  But who has the time to read RFC's?  Don't we
all just copy existing code, or just test something and then change our code
to fall within that test criteria?

Rob Berendt
--
Group Dekko Services, LLC
Dept 01.073
PO Box 2000
Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com





"Ingvaldson, Scott" <SIngvaldson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
01/31/2006 10:56 AM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Fax to

Subject
RE: V5R4 ftp anomaly






Doesn't that message get sent from the Target Server?  We get a 250
response from our M/F FTPs but a 226 response from a server that
identifies itself as "Microsoft FTP Service (Version 4.0)"

Regards,
 
Scott Ingvaldson
iSeries System Administrator
GuideOne Insurance Group


-----Original Message-----
date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:34:21 -0800
from: "Tim Kredlo" <TKredlo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: V5R4 ftp anomaly

I passed along this info along to the guy who deals with FTP here. He
says
that he has come across both the '226' and the '250' messages
previously. He
does not have any idea what the differences are, but that this is not
new.

Tim Kredlo
Exterior Wood, Inc


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:53 AM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: V5R4 ftp anomaly

This is a reply from one vendor regarding a V5R4 ftp issue:

It would appear that IBM has changed something with FTP transfers in
V5R4. 


FTP does not give us errors so we have to read the FTP log and interpret

it. 

We are coded to look for: 

"250 File transfer completed successfully." 

but V5R4 is issuing 
"226 File transfer completed successfully." 

This may be considered a bug in V5R4 as the FTP standard defines what 
these
status codes ought to be...... or IBM may have just decided to change 
to use a different code for successful completion. 

I am going to enter a fix for <(our package)> so that we look for both
of 
these codes when 
reporting on a successful completion. 

************
Rob's notes:
What I think happened in V5R4 FTP server is that they changed from 250
to 
226 to match what most unix servers show.
************

************
IBM's reply:
In the next V5R4 MTU update, there should be a section added to chapter
4
(Licensed programs) for product 5722-TC1 (TCP/IP Connectivity Utilities 
for
i5/OS) and the following entry added to that section:

FTP reply code changed
For V5R4, the FTP server was changed to return a
reply code of 226 instead of 250, when a successful data transfer
has been completed.  This made the FTP server compliant with RFC 959
which states that if the data transfer connection is closed after a
successful data transfer, the reply code should be 226.  Customers
or business partners who have FTP scripts that are expecting the 250
reply code should change their scripts to expect back a 226 reply
code for a successful data transfer.
************


Rob Berendt