Resume Bug on download with flashfxp 1.4.4. beta 840

LittleFart · 04-05-2002, 12:14 PM

there is a very big problem in the new 840 beta, this bug is not in the 1.4.3 final... flashfxp does NOT resume on download with the new beta, here the log:

PASV
227 Entering Passive Mode (xxx,xxx,xxx,xx,6,111)
RETR 200k
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 200k (200000 bytes).
(soft abort)
ABOR
426 Data connection closed, file transfer 200k aborted.
226 ABOR command successful.
User Aborted
PASV
227 Entering Passive Mode (xxx,xxx,xxx,xx,6,111)
REST 28672
This file can not be resumed
RETR 200k
350 Restarting at 28672 - send STORE or RETRIEVE to initiate transfer.
Transferred: 200k 0 bytes in 06:38:48 (1,00 KB/Sec)
Transfer Failed!
PASV
426 Data connection closed, file transfer 200k aborted.
227 Entering Passive Mode (216,242,112,92,6,118)
RETR 200k
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 200k (200000 bytes).
(soft abort)
ABOR
426 Data connection closed, file transfer 200k aborted.
226 ABOR command successful.
Transferred 1 file totaling 0 bytes in 10,10 (0,00 KB/Sec)
User Aborted

ALTHOUGH the ftp is 100% resumeable, i also tested it with cute ftp and with cute ftp the resume works fine from this ftp =(

host ftp was serv-u 3.x

bigstar · 04-05-2002, 06:58 PM

You are right there is a very big problem with build 840.

The exe copy protection wrapper that we used appears to have corrupted the exe, FlashFXP is performing in a way that it was not designed.

Build 840 used a different version of the exe copy protection then what we normally use.

Tearom · 04-06-2002, 04:20 AM

Don't want to sound too stupid bigstar, but in everyday terms, what is the cause of this error in build 840?

bigstar · 04-06-2002, 06:36 AM

I don't really know how to make it simple, because even I myself don't fully understand the nature of what happened.

What I do know is the exe protection I use corrupted FlashFXP code and caused it to perform in a way it was not designed.

If you downloaded build 840 then I suggest you revert back to 835 until we get to the bottom of this.

Tearom · 04-06-2002, 10:56 AM

OK will do. If you read the original post, then your response, the flavor of the subject seemed to sound, to those outside the understanding of programmer speak, that this was happening to the guy due to the fact HE wasn't using it right (i.e. illegal copy)....lol

I understand though, I work tech support for a major ISP and I understand what I am telling our customers and get frustrated when they don't understand. I would make a lousy teacher.

Great product btw, matter of a fact I purchased it this morning. Bugs and all.