> And then, you have to wonder, if you have to substantially change the software in use at the client and server (and possibly even write custom code, per your

> And then, you have to wonder, if you have to substantially change the software in use at the client and server (and possibly even write custom code, per your Apache+$LANG suggestion), are those significant changes really worth it just to save on one extra port open on the firewall? Oh, sorry, I didn't make it clear before. I'm fully admitting that in the case of record-oriented file requirements, especially on the client side, FTPS probably doesn't have a better solution available. I was just noting that a vastly simplified firewall configuration that both doesn't require multiple ports opened (or to somehow read the PORT/PASV or EPRT/EPSV commands and open ports dynamically) is simpler, which is an advantage. It doesn't necessarily make up to the record-oriented storage problems that would have to be dealt with in those cases though.