Subject: Ftp-WG: MLST implementations?

From: "Jeff P. Van Dyke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 12:53:32 -0400

>Alun Jones writes:
>> [but then, MLST also replicates much of what EPLF was trying to do,
>
>It's true that the MLST format is a poor imitation of the EPLF format.
>But MLST is missing the fundamental goal of EPLF: namely, to _simplify_
>future FTP implementations.
>
>> and merely achieved popularity over EPLF.]
>
>EPLF is supported by Netscape 5.0, Lynx 2.6, Voyager 3, Mirror 2.9,
>EMirror 2.1, gFTP 2.0.0, Squid 2.3, and several experimental clients.
>How many clients can parse, let alone use, MLST?
>
>The advantage of MLST over EPLF was supposed to be immediate adoption by
>today's servers---never mind the corresponding disadvantage for clients.
>Okay: How many servers understand MLST?

Can you send me a pointer to the latest RFC or Internet
draft on EPLF ?

Thank you.

Jeff P. Van Dyke
[email-masked]

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:51:34 -0400

> Can you send me a pointer to the latest RFC or Internet

See http://pobox.com/~djb/ftpparse.html for parsing code and pointers to
further information.

---Dan