Date:  Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:47:45 -0400
From:  "Greg O'Lone" <bluequartzlist (at mark) stretchedout.com>
Subject:  [coba-e:15363] Re: Re  Broken FTP
To:  coba-e (at mark) bluequartz.org
Message-Id:  <F3DF39F8-7466-46F3-8ECB-4FDEBEB0DFFF (at mark) stretchedout.com>
In-Reply-To:  <45DACA7BE1DEA245AF6C95E5B94E531B0E944A81E8 (at mark) datastore.mainline.local>
References:  <45DACA7BE1DEA245AF6C95E5B94E531B0D07A62D72 (at mark) datastore.mainline.local> <8CF48C7B-5D21-4D63-919E-B2080F072EDD (at mark) alpha.or.jp> <45DACA7BE1DEA245AF6C95E5B94E531B0E944A81B7 (at mark) datastore.mainline.local> <200903181823.32812.lesmith (at mark) ecsis.net> <45DACA7BE1DEA245AF6C95E5B94E531B0E944A81C3 (at mark) datastore.mainline.local> <6D4B0821-2936-4CC1-B40F-C97C5B269E73 (at mark) stretchedout.com> <45DACA7BE1DEA245AF6C95E5B94E531B0E944A81E8 (at mark) datastore.mainline.local>
X-Mail-Count: 15363

Or changed the firewall...

Greg

On Mar 19, 2009, at 9:43 am, Colin Jack wrote:

> No - this was working absolutely fine until the latest yum update  
> updated it! Unless the update has installed a new /etc/proftpd.conf  
> file with something funny in it ... hmmm I wonder. I will take a look.
>
> There is something in the update that has broken it (on all our  
> servers).
>
> Regards
>
> Colin
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Greg O'Lone [mailto:bluequartzlist (at mark) stretchedout.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:18 PM
>> To: coba-e (at mark) bluequartz.org
>> Subject: [coba-e:15361] Re: Re Broken FTP
>>
>> Colin,
>>
>> Could this be a Passive FTP problem? we found (because of the  
>> firewall
>> we are using) that we had to specify the PASV port range in the /etc/
>> proftpd.conf file because we didn't want to allow external  
>> connections
>> on everything from 49152 to 65535... and in our infinite wisdom, the
>> first time we did this, the firewall got configured first. Suddenly
>> file transfers were being rejected all over the place... but only
>> about 2/3 of them. It took a while to figure out what happened  
>> because
>> the connection problems were escalated and the port change was put on
>> hold (so much for the operation plan...). Anyway once we took a step
>> back and remembered... oh yeah...
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2009, at 5:31 am, Colin Jack wrote:
>>
>