Last modified is appearing incorrectly in remote window

[farns]

The SFTP specs clearly state the time stamp returned must be UNIX time (seconds since 1970-01-01, 00:00:00 UTC).

Yes, that's a very reasonable standard and servers should abide by it. No argument on that.

However, I think it might make sense to build a few contingencies against at least the most common ways in which servers deviate from the standard. Another user here mentioned winscp. I tried it on our server and it reports the times correctly (that is, it reports the time that the file was actually created). From the point of view of the users, filezilla not supporting servers that disobey the standard is a bug, regardless of the philosophical motivation behind it. The fact that other clients do support such servers serves to highlight this, which is what I suspect dzqm was trying to communicate by bringing that fact up.

botg, you are correct that filezilla is up to spec in the sense that it works with servers that obey the actual sftp standards. But from a practical point of view it doesn't support as wide a range of servers as the users are expecting. The choice to keep it that way is up to the developers, but it seems to me that making filezilla robust to certain common bad behavior on the part of subpar sftp servers would make filezilla more useful and complete.

[lampshadecollar]

Fact is, you are beneath me in everything FTP and SFTP related. But instead of ignoring my user's concerns I respond to questions and explain the root of the problem.

Dude, I cannot believe how obtuse your "help" is on this issue. I get it: you're a smart guy, you are all-knowing in your little domain over here... CONGRATULATIONS. Are you actually here to help people though? Do you care about how they percieve the overall quality of the FileZilla product?

Anyone with enough knowledge on a subject can point to the problem and say, "there it is!". But that is not an ANSWER. botg, your kind are rapidly becoming an obsolete bunch and are EXACTLY what give the IT crowd such a pathetic stereotype. Your "service" here is a disservice to all around you.

Here is what people should be told about this problem: YES, the problem exists at the server and has to do with the way that it serves it's timestamping. To resolve the issue there must be work done at that server: Contact the site's administrator -OR- If you are the site administrator, contact the support for your server product.

I hope that helps all that have actually come here to get REAL help with the issue.

[botg]

I get it: you're a smart guy, you are all-knowing in your little domain over here... CONGRATULATIONS.

Thanks, I'm flattered.

Here is what people should be told about this problem: YES, the problem exists at the server and has to do with the way that it serves it's timestamping. To resolve the issue there must be work done at that server: Contact the site's administrator -OR- If you are the site administrator, contact the support for your server product.

You lack reading comprehension. To quote what I said earlier in this very topic:

So clearly a broken server that sends incorrect timestamps.

See http://forum.filezilla-project.org/view ... f=2&t=7056 for the same issue reported by somebody else.

What part of "broken server" do you not understand? Is either "broken" or "server" too techy for you? Do I have to dumb it down further?

Are you actually here to help people though? Do you care about how they percieve the overall quality of the FileZilla product?

No, I prefer to argue with trolls like you.

[lampshadecollar]

Yikes... Thank you for proving my point for me (yet again), botg.

[botg]

Closed. No point arguing with trolls. They'll drag you down to their level where they have the home field advantage.