FTP Server

[Bevan C. Bennett]

Jason Dixon wrote:
> I've actually been pondering why most folks haven't simply replaced
> anonymous FTP with HTTP.  The transmission advantages of days yore
> simply don't matter with broadband.  I know there are exceptions where
> folks need certain features, but for the bulk of exposed anon-ftp
> servers out there, FTP just isn't necessary.
> 
> Just my $0.02.

That's pretty much exactly what we've done... for anonymous and 
authenticated -downloads-. (It's nice that http clients universally 
support SSL, unlike ftp clients).

What we still need anonymous ftp for is to provide a location for 
-uploads- from clients and partners. I guess we could potentially set up 
something with funky permissions and http PUT commands, but ftp servers 
already have a well-documented configuration for 'blind' anonymous 
dropboxes.