On 2013-05-07 09:44, Derek Balling wrote:
On May 7, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Yves Dorfsman <[email protected]> wrote:
1) how many servers do you know of will accept a telnet connection (as in a
network terminal)? Hence, telnet is obsolete.
For the purpose of "telnet to port 80", I don't care about the network terminal
tcp/23 port.
Look at it the other way around: Since there is another tool that can do the
same + some more, why would you keep both of them?
2) nc is bidirectional. When you wonder if the problem is your apps, or the
firewall blocking you, you can run nc in listen mode on one side, then nc in
opening mode on the other side.
That's a whole different use case than "talk to that remote port". That's "open up a
local listener daemon" essentially (which you could talk to, from the remote side using NC or
Telnet).
So, again - for the purpose of "open a connection to $REMOTE_PORT on $REMOTE_HOST to talk to
it manually", why is nc "better"?
man nc
man netcat
netcat can do UDP, change the size of the TCP receive buffer, specify the size
of the TCP send buffer, force a source port, options about routing table I
don't even understand, etc....
--
Yves. http://www.SollerS.ca/
Unix/Linux and Python specialist in Calgary.
http://blog.zioup.org/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
