From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by speech.braille.uwo.ca with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1I4fE8-0004fm-00 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:51:12 -0400 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E286434E9 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:51:11 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: ukuRT57tpoPOhH1y7RU0ZgiZq5TO6D6kr9KZDpT7sicW 1183218671 Received: from cq.ftml.net (24-105-197-112.cm.mhcable.com [24.105.197.112]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D39FA72 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chuckh by cq.ftml.net with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I4fE7-0005UM-Ba for speakup@braille.uwo.ca; Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:51:11 -0400 Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:51:11 -0400 From: Chuck Hallenbeck To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." Subject: Re: ftp configuration clarification Message-ID: <20070630155111.GA19189@cq.ftml.net> Mail-Followup-To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." References: <20070630133225.GA1654@cq.ftml.net> <005501c7bb35$6716b270$ab00a8c0@tenstac> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <005501c7bb35$6716b270$ab00a8c0@tenstac> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-BeenThere: speakup@braille.uwo.ca X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." List-Id: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:51:12 -0000 Doug, You make a strong case for caution. Any simple way to detect the possible compromise? I presently examine my daily log of incoming and outgoing emails for anomalies, check for rootkits, etc., and have so far been fortunate (I think). BTW, the answer to my original question seems to be that I ought to open ports on the server side to support passive mode. The only possible benefit seems to be I could close port 20. Not much of a benefit, and way too much risk. Chuck -- The Moon is Full My home page with some downloads is at http://www.mhcable.com/~chuckh The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.