sftp client

[Markus Friedl]

As i see the drafts "subsystem" is the same as "exec" plus
one additional level of indirection.

Moreover, since having .bashrc print out things breaks
many things in Unix, it's not really sshd's job to
add code that fixes broken installations.

On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 11:57:51AM +0100, Mats Andersson wrote:
> There is three kinds of session channels, "shell", "exec", and
> "subsystem". If one would want a shell for this kind of stuff one would
> choose "exec" (i.e. the rsh equivalent, e.g. for running scp). As it is
> now, there is not much benefit in having the sftp protocol run as a
> subsystem. It might aswell run as an "exec" session (the only benefit is
> of course that the client doesn't have to know the name of the sftp-server
> program but that seems quite minor...).

this is a big issue with scp, see all the questions about "why
does scp fail".

> One benefit of having it run as a
> subsystem might for example be that the subsystem itself knows something
> about what users can and can't do independantly of the shell which happens
> to be in effect. This is of course just a subtle config/implementation
> issue as to how to handle user configuration, though it seems nice to be
> as flexible as possible with the given choices for how to do things (i.e.
> in this case how one can utilize the "shell", "exec", "subsystem" sessions
> of ssh2).

yes, this would be nice to have.

-m