Justin B Rye ha scritto: > I don't see any /usr/sbin/fex... or anything in /etc/init.d/... to > me it looks like a bunch of CGI-scripts. But assuming you're right, > shouldn't it "Provides: httpd", or possibly "Conflicts"? Does it > take over port 80? It uses inetd, and (debian) default installation takes over port 8080. User can change it editing /etc/services > Why not just mail the file? Or up/download it via FTP? These > methods may have disadvantages, but none of them intrinsically limit > the file size, so I don't understand why F*EX is advertised so > heavily on this basis. Email isn't conceived for file transfer. Do you think that sending an email with a 100MB file size attachment is a good idea? FTP should make its job, but I must create/delete account for every file, or create an anonymous FTP account. Vincent Bernat wrote: > This kind of service is really useful for users that keep sending large > piece of data through mail servers and then complain that this does not > work. They need an easy service allowing to send large files without > learning something new (like a FTP client), which is almost as fast as > attaching a document to an email and provides the same privacy options > than an unencrypted email (so, uploading to a shared FTP is not an > option, unless you excessively tune the FTP server). Otherwise, they > will just keep sending files via mail. > I see no explanation in /usr/share/doc/fex/SSL - only a shell > fragment with undeclared dependencies on openssl and xinetd (as > opposed to openbsd-inetd, which _is_ in the package dependencies). Right, upstream recommends xinetd and that doc uses it > Data transferred unencrypted by default, authentication via > passwords sent in e-mails... this software was first released in > March, yet it's doing a passable impression of a nineties relic. Come on, I installed this service about a month ago, and feedbacks from my users are extremely positive. Why? Because it's easy and provides the same privacy options than an unencrypted email. > > Presumably it has some big advantage that makes up for all this, but > I can't work out quite what its selling point is, given that it's > taken for granted that I have root access on a web-accessible host. Do you give root access to your user/customer ? > If they're not in fex (or a package fex depends on), fex's package > description shouldn't promise to provide them. Instead there should > be a pointer to the package that does provide them. Right, thanks. Giuseppe.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature