Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:00:06PM -0800, John Nemeth wrote: > } The previous telnet thread, contentious as it has been, has completely > } missed the critical context, which is that telnet is 14,700 lines > } cutpasted from the Necronomicon and telnetd is only slightly better. > > Yeah, so? So it's a danger to have around, given that it's network-facing. Have you looked at the code? Have you tried making changes to it? Do you have any grounds for claiming it's not as bad as I say it is? It's the worst code I've ever worked on, and I've spent a long time (probably more than most people here) cleaning out toxic software messes and I've seen a lot. > why aren't you volunteering to do the rewrite Because I'm not one of the people claiming I need it because I can't learn to type 'nc' instead. Because the amount of discretionary hacking time I have these days is measured in tens of hours per year. Because I already threw plenty of time down this rathole in the past (note the 12000 line diff I posted a couple days ago). Because anyone could do it and I should be spending what time I have on things that other people can't or won't do. Etc. And also, because the attitude in this thread (yours, but not just yours) is ticking me off. I have better things to do than provide software for free to people who respond to my carefully considered opinion with contempt. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:48:49PM +, David Holland wrote: > If you value your sanity, don't. But, also, you might want to rethink > how much you trust it. As much as the network I run it on. If someone can do a MITM on this network I have a much bigger problem than a telnet exploit. -- Manuel Bouyer NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference --
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Dec 19, 4:14pm, "J. Lewis Muir" wrote: } Subject: Re: deleting telnet/telnetd } On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 1:11 PM David Holland wrote: } > If the conclusion is that we really need a telnet client (I myself } > really don't care if it's in base or not) then we should write a new } > one. } } Or use an existing one? } } PuTTY } } https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/ } } claims to be a client implementation of Telnet. I've never used it PuTTY comes with a built-in terminal emulator and GUI based menus. As far as I know, there is no way use it via a CLI. If somebody does know of one, please tell us. }-- End of excerpt from "J. Lewis Muir"
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:04:19PM -0800, John Nemeth wrote: > } The reason it came up this week is that someone found and posted a > } couple noncritical problems in one of the other forks of it. > > And, how many years has it been since the last significant bug? How many years has it been since anyone looked at it in any serious way? Have you looked at the code? It's quite reasonable to suppose it has many significant bugs. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
John, you get everything you could possibly get: we're definitely not deleting telnet. Please stop poking people in this thread which has gone on for too long.
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:17:28PM -0800, John Nemeth wrote: > } - PuTTY is nice > > PuTTY is a graphical app, and therefore not a replacement for > telnet(1). If there is a way to use it from a command line, please > let us know. As you would know if you'd bothered to look, PuTTY contains its own telnet protocol implementation that isn't derived from the historic one. It would be interesting to know just how many legacy network devices it's actually been tested against and what fraction of them it works reliably with. (However, it does not support flow control, which probably nobody cares about, or line mode, which various people have announced they do.) > It's frustrating even when it touches things that one doesn't > use. It's just double frustrating when it touches things that one > uses. The deletionists should go create their own OS (which will > be useless due to lack of functionality). You realize I'm not a deletionist, right? -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, John Nemeth wrote: One that still hasn't been released publically, so there is no point in talking about it. https://hacker.house/releasez/expl0itz/telnet_term_0day.py was released last week... it's a proof of concept that doesn't do anything except make telnet crash, but I'd be surprised if it couldn't be modified to allow arbitrary code execution. PuTTY is a graphical app, and therefore not a replacement for telnet(1). If there is a way to use it from a command line, please let us know. plink is the CLI version of PuTTY. -- Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called / INet: k...@azeotrope.org | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat / Telegram: @dahanc| dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG Dahan: Hani G Y+C 43 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Dec 20, 1:25am, m...@netbsd.org wrote: } On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:24:35AM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote: } > On 2018/12/20 7:08, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: } > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, David Holland wrote: } > > } > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 01:36:48PM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: } > > > > Telnet is used every day and most of the use cases can use nc. } > > > > } > > > > I wish you'd get rid of it because that would mean I can resign and } > > > > delete NetBSD and get rid of a lot of old hardware. } > > > } > > > You realize I'm not one of the deletionists, right? } > > } > > Yeah, I'm just tired of listening how the sky is falling. I'm off of IRC } > > and I'm going to quit reading the mailing lists for a while. } > > } > } > +1 } > } > David, do you understand your attitude is one of the best } > example of "bad communication" without dirty word? } } I don't think that is fair to say. } Swear words are meant to hurt. Not necessarily. Some people use them as filler words and insert them randomly into otherwise peaceful conversations. Personally I think they have no place in pretty much any conversation (and definitely no place where professional decorum is expected) and demonstrate a lack of intelligence on the part of the user (or, at least a lack of vocabulary). } David's attitude is originating from him feeling that the sky is } falling, and isn't intended to make you feel bad (but happens to). Except that there isn't any credible evidence that the sky is falling. Simply being old, and possibly icky, code doesn't count. }-- End of excerpt from m...@netbsd.org
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Dec 19, 11:48pm, David Holland wrote: } On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:06:58PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: } > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:03:19PM +, David Holland wrote: } > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:58:14PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: } > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 09:03:27PM +, David Holland wrote: } > > > > [...] } > > > > The hope, I think, was that the conclusion would be that we don't } > > > > really need one. } > > > } > > > We really need one, and the one we have does the job. I really don't see } > > > why we shoud rewrite something that works. } > > } > > Have you looked at the code? } > } > no but I do use it quite often. } } If you value your sanity, don't. But, also, you might want to rethink I could say the same thing about OpenSSH, something that is supposed to use modern coding standards to be secure. At one time, I maintained SunOS 4.x systems past their "best before" dates. I ran OpenSSH on them. Every other release, they broke the portability layer. Looking at that code seriously hurt my head. My point is that there is a lot of code out there that can hurt your sanity, and some of it isn't all that old. } how much you trust it. If there was a suitable replacement for OpenSSH, I would jump on it in an instance. }-- End of excerpt from David Holland
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Dec 19, 10:55pm, m...@netbsd.org wrote: } On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:14:47PM +, m...@netbsd.org wrote: } > Relax, the end conclusion was not to delete it. To maintain it until a } > replacement comes in. Please help test the replacement if it is written, } > to ensure it works for your case. } } - Given an exploit, it's still going to be an uninteresting. It's One that still hasn't been released publically, so there is no point in talking about it. } - There was a precedence by OS X, we aren't doing this though. OS X is NOT a precedence for anything except OS X. } - PuTTY is nice PuTTY is a graphical app, and therefore not a replacement for telnet(1). If there is a way to use it from a command line, please let us know. } - This deletionist attitude is frustrating if it touches things you } care/d about. It's frustrating even when it touches things that one doesn't use. It's just double frustrating when it touches things that one uses. The deletionists should go create their own OS (which will be useless due to lack of functionality). }-- End of excerpt from m...@netbsd.org
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Dec 19, 9:03pm, David Holland wrote: } On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:32:08PM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: } > I don't understand your position. Let me explain why. } > } > You're saying, "Write a new one, and it's going to be close to } > impossible," at the same time you're saying, "Delete this one." } > } > If it's impossible, and we need one, we'll need to keep the old one no } > matter how bad it is, right? And if you can't fix it after all the } > experience you have with it, how am I going to be able to fix it? } } I don't really follow. It's not impossible. It's just not trivial. } } Keeping the old one has been the answer for the past twenty-odd } years. But it can't be fixed and sooner or later someone's going to } find a critical problem with it. You can make this argument about pretty much everything. Which is, to say, a totally meaningless argument. } The reason it came up this week is that someone found and posted a } couple noncritical problems in one of the other forks of it. And, how many years has it been since the last significant bug? }-- End of excerpt from David Holland
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Dec 19, 12:32pm, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: } } I don't understand your position. Let me explain why. } } You're saying, "Write a new one, and it's going to be close to } impossible," at the same time you're saying, "Delete this one." } } If it's impossible, and we need one, we'll need to keep the old one no } matter how bad it is, right? And if you can't fix it after all the } experience you have with it, how am I going to be able to fix it? Maybe you're a better programmer. :-> } On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, David Holland wrote: } } > The previous telnet thread, contentious as it has been, has completely } > missed the critical context, which is that telnet is 14,700 lines } > cutpasted from the Necronomicon and telnetd is only slightly better. } > } > If the conclusion is that we really need a telnet client (I myself } > really don't care if it's in base or not) then we should write a new } > one. } > } > The old one should be deleted, the sooner the better. } > } > Keep in mind that I say this from the perspective of having been the } > upstream maintainer of the linux fork of it for some years and having } > wasted quite a bit of time and sanity points trying to improve it, } > i.e., arguments of the form "it's not that bad" not grounded in } > similar experience aren't going to be very convincing. } > } > Which of y'all who have been vocal on the other thread are willing to } > help write this? Speak up. } > } > Note that there are 50-odd RFCs on telnet and those document only the } > basics. Making it work with the legacy router in your junkheap will } > require that you get off your duff and test it against that router... } > } > } } -- } Hisashi T Fujinaka - ht...@twofifty.com } BSEE + BSChem + BAEnglish + MSCS + $2.50 = coffee }-- End of excerpt from Hisashi T Fujinaka
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Dec 19, 7:11pm, David Holland wrote: } } The previous telnet thread, contentious as it has been, has completely } missed the critical context, which is that telnet is 14,700 lines } cutpasted from the Necronomicon and telnetd is only slightly better. Yeah, so? } If the conclusion is that we really need a telnet client (I myself } really don't care if it's in base or not) then we should write a new } one. } } The old one should be deleted, the sooner the better. Why? There are lots of other things that need doing, that I would consider to be much higher priority. If you feel this strongly about it, then why aren't you volunteering to do the rewrite (insert something here about not being able to tell volunteers what to do)? } [snip] } } Note that there are 50-odd RFCs on telnet and those document only the } basics. Making it work with the legacy router in your junkheap will } require that you get off your duff and test it against that router... In other words, a pretty much impossible task... }-- End of excerpt from David Holland
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On 19.12.2018 21:32, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > I don't understand your position. Let me explain why. > > You're saying, "Write a new one, and it's going to be close to > impossible," at the same time you're saying, "Delete this one." > > If it's impossible, and we need one, we'll need to keep the old one no > matter how bad it is, right? And if you can't fix it after all the > experience you have with it, how am I going to be able to fix it? > This can be applied to almost any code in src/, e.g. libz that has unacceptable quality according to Sortix and they made their own fork. libz could be packaged in pkgsrc too. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:24:35AM +0900, Rin Okuyama wrote: > On 2018/12/20 7:08, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, David Holland wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 01:36:48PM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > > > > Telnet is used every day and most of the use cases can use nc. > > > > > > > > I wish you'd get rid of it because that would mean I can resign and > > > > delete NetBSD and get rid of a lot of old hardware. > > > > > > You realize I'm not one of the deletionists, right? > > > > Yeah, I'm just tired of listening how the sky is falling. I'm off of IRC > > and I'm going to quit reading the mailing lists for a while. > > > > +1 > > David, do you understand your attitude is one of the best > example of "bad communication" without dirty word? > > rin I don't think that is fair to say. Swear words are meant to hurt. David's attitude is originating from him feeling that the sky is falling, and isn't intended to make you feel bad (but happens to).
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On 2018/12/20 7:08, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, David Holland wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 01:36:48PM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > Telnet is used every day and most of the use cases can use nc. > > I wish you'd get rid of it because that would mean I can resign and > delete NetBSD and get rid of a lot of old hardware. You realize I'm not one of the deletionists, right? Yeah, I'm just tired of listening how the sky is falling. I'm off of IRC and I'm going to quit reading the mailing lists for a while. +1 David, do you understand your attitude is one of the best example of "bad communication" without dirty word? rin
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
Date:Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:03:27 + From:David Holland Message-ID: <20181219210327.ga5...@netbsd.org> | But it can't be fixed and sooner or later someone's going to | find a critical problem with it. Nothing can't be fixed. It all depends what the objective is. If you have decided that you don't like the way it is written, and want to change it all, then yes, that would be difficult, especially, as you say, getting access to all the wierd other-end nodes is not easy. But if the objective is simply to deal with any "critical problems", ideally in advace, that's a whole different thing, and not nearly so daunting. I'm not willing to rewrite it, but I have looked at the code (long in the past now) and while it is a little unusual in some ways, we know that it does work in general - they may be some holes (a lot of old code had that) but it is not going to take a redesign to fix. If there are some parts that don't actually work, and aren't easy to fix, those can be excised - clearly if anything like that exists, it isn't being used. Of course, if someone does create a new, equally fiunctional, client and server combination, that would be fine too. kre
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:06:58PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:03:19PM +, David Holland wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:58:14PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 09:03:27PM +, David Holland wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > The hope, I think, was that the conclusion would be that we don't > > > > really need one. > > > > > > We really need one, and the one we have does the job. I really don't see > > > why we shoud rewrite something that works. > > > > Have you looked at the code? > > no but I do use it quite often. If you value your sanity, don't. But, also, you might want to rethink how much you trust it. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:03:19PM +, David Holland wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:58:14PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 09:03:27PM +, David Holland wrote: > > > [...] > > > The hope, I think, was that the conclusion would be that we don't > > > really need one. > > > > We really need one, and the one we have does the job. I really don't see > > why we shoud rewrite something that works. > > Have you looked at the code? no but I do use it quite often. -- Manuel Bouyer NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference --
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:14:47PM +, m...@netbsd.org wrote: > Relax, the end conclusion was not to delete it. To maintain it until a > replacement comes in. Please help test the replacement if it is written, > to ensure it works for your case. - Given an exploit, it's still going to be an uninteresting. It's passive and will work for a very small population. We are in a world where Equifax had a vulnerable Apache Struts instance for several months (they are not alone). - Let's all get together some time, it's hard to offset negative interaction by text. - We still care about people who run on weak hardware - Yes I know that telnet is useful for testing remote servers - There was a precedence by OS X, we aren't doing this though. - PuTTY is nice - dh is somewhat frustrated and doesn't have enough energy, this is contagious and makes you want to quit everything. - This deletionist attitude is frustrating if it touches things you care/d about. - Not deleting telnet client w/o replacement satisfying everyone.
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:14:47PM +, m...@netbsd.org wrote: > Relax, the end conclusion was not to delete it. To maintain it until a > replacement comes in. Please help test the replacement if it is written, > to ensure it works for your case. Obviously since we've concluded we need a telnet client, we can't delete the one we've got without a replacement... -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 02:08:46PM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, David Holland wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 01:36:48PM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > > > Telnet is used every day and most of the use cases can use nc. > > > > > > I wish you'd get rid of it because that would mean I can resign and > > > delete NetBSD and get rid of a lot of old hardware. > > > > You realize I'm not one of the deletionists, right? > > Yeah, I'm just tired of listening how the sky is falling. I'm off of IRC > and I'm going to quit reading the mailing lists for a while. Fair enough. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
Relax, the end conclusion was not to delete it. To maintain it until a replacement comes in. Please help test the replacement if it is written, to ensure it works for your case.
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 1:11 PM David Holland wrote: > If the conclusion is that we really need a telnet client (I myself > really don't care if it's in base or not) then we should write a new > one. Or use an existing one? PuTTY https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/ claims to be a client implementation of Telnet. I've never used it for Telnet, and I've never looked at the source code, but as far as code quality is concerned, I would expect it to be of high quality based on other software written by Simon Tatham that I *have* looked at the source code for and used. Regards, Lewis
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, David Holland wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 01:36:48PM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > Telnet is used every day and most of the use cases can use nc. > > I wish you'd get rid of it because that would mean I can resign and > delete NetBSD and get rid of a lot of old hardware. You realize I'm not one of the deletionists, right? Yeah, I'm just tired of listening how the sky is falling. I'm off of IRC and I'm going to quit reading the mailing lists for a while. -- Hisashi T Fujinaka - ht...@twofifty.com BSEE + BSChem + BAEnglish + MSCS + $2.50 = coffee
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:58:14PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 09:03:27PM +, David Holland wrote: > > [...] > > The hope, I think, was that the conclusion would be that we don't > > really need one. > > We really need one, and the one we have does the job. I really don't see > why we shoud rewrite something that works. Have you looked at the code? -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 01:36:48PM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > Telnet is used every day and most of the use cases can use nc. > > I wish you'd get rid of it because that would mean I can resign and > delete NetBSD and get rid of a lot of old hardware. You realize I'm not one of the deletionists, right? -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 09:03:27PM +, David Holland wrote: > [...] > The hope, I think, was that the conclusion would be that we don't > really need one. We really need one, and the one we have does the job. I really don't see why we shoud rewrite something that works. -- Manuel Bouyer NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference --
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On 12/19/18 10:36 PM, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: I wish you'd get rid of it because that would mean I can resign and delete NetBSD and get rid of a lot of old hardware. I'm having the same feeling... :-( regards, chris
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, David Holland wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:32:08PM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > I don't understand your position. Let me explain why. > > You're saying, "Write a new one, and it's going to be close to > impossible," at the same time you're saying, "Delete this one." > > If it's impossible, and we need one, we'll need to keep the old one no > matter how bad it is, right? And if you can't fix it after all the > experience you have with it, how am I going to be able to fix it? I don't really follow. It's not impossible. It's just not trivial. Keeping the old one has been the answer for the past twenty-odd years. But it can't be fixed and sooner or later someone's going to find a critical problem with it. The reason it came up this week is that someone found and posted a couple noncritical problems in one of the other forks of it. The hope, I think, was that the conclusion would be that we don't really need one. Top post, bottom post, whatever. Telnet is used every day and most of the use cases can use nc. I wish you'd get rid of it because that would mean I can resign and delete NetBSD and get rid of a lot of old hardware. -- Hisashi T Fujinaka - ht...@twofifty.com BSEE + BSChem + BAEnglish + MSCS + $2.50 = coffee
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:32:08PM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > I don't understand your position. Let me explain why. > > You're saying, "Write a new one, and it's going to be close to > impossible," at the same time you're saying, "Delete this one." > > If it's impossible, and we need one, we'll need to keep the old one no > matter how bad it is, right? And if you can't fix it after all the > experience you have with it, how am I going to be able to fix it? I don't really follow. It's not impossible. It's just not trivial. Keeping the old one has been the answer for the past twenty-odd years. But it can't be fixed and sooner or later someone's going to find a critical problem with it. The reason it came up this week is that someone found and posted a couple noncritical problems in one of the other forks of it. The hope, I think, was that the conclusion would be that we don't really need one. > [top-posting deleted] -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: deleting telnet/telnetd
I don't understand your position. Let me explain why. You're saying, "Write a new one, and it's going to be close to impossible," at the same time you're saying, "Delete this one." If it's impossible, and we need one, we'll need to keep the old one no matter how bad it is, right? And if you can't fix it after all the experience you have with it, how am I going to be able to fix it? On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, David Holland wrote: The previous telnet thread, contentious as it has been, has completely missed the critical context, which is that telnet is 14,700 lines cutpasted from the Necronomicon and telnetd is only slightly better. If the conclusion is that we really need a telnet client (I myself really don't care if it's in base or not) then we should write a new one. The old one should be deleted, the sooner the better. Keep in mind that I say this from the perspective of having been the upstream maintainer of the linux fork of it for some years and having wasted quite a bit of time and sanity points trying to improve it, i.e., arguments of the form "it's not that bad" not grounded in similar experience aren't going to be very convincing. Which of y'all who have been vocal on the other thread are willing to help write this? Speak up. Note that there are 50-odd RFCs on telnet and those document only the basics. Making it work with the legacy router in your junkheap will require that you get off your duff and test it against that router... -- Hisashi T Fujinaka - ht...@twofifty.com BSEE + BSChem + BAEnglish + MSCS + $2.50 = coffee
deleting telnet/telnetd
The previous telnet thread, contentious as it has been, has completely missed the critical context, which is that telnet is 14,700 lines cutpasted from the Necronomicon and telnetd is only slightly better. If the conclusion is that we really need a telnet client (I myself really don't care if it's in base or not) then we should write a new one. The old one should be deleted, the sooner the better. Keep in mind that I say this from the perspective of having been the upstream maintainer of the linux fork of it for some years and having wasted quite a bit of time and sanity points trying to improve it, i.e., arguments of the form "it's not that bad" not grounded in similar experience aren't going to be very convincing. Which of y'all who have been vocal on the other thread are willing to help write this? Speak up. Note that there are 50-odd RFCs on telnet and those document only the basics. Making it work with the legacy router in your junkheap will require that you get off your duff and test it against that router... -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
Re: Moving telnet/telnetd from base to pkgsrc
On Tue 18 Dec 2018 at 09:02:45 -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > Apple removed it from OS X and it's a big pain in the ass. I'd suggest > fix it (going at it with a big torch if necessary to remove likely dead > and likely dangerous code -- many/most of the options, even things like > linemode) and keep it. Isn't linemode used by default when not connecting to a port with telnet negotiation? That's how you can edit your line when you mistype GET / HTTP/1.0. Or maybe that is the "old line by line" mode that telnet(1) speaks of. Or these could be the same thing (telnet> mode ? suggests that) -Olaf. -- ___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert -- "What good is a Ring of Power \X/ rhialto/at/falu.nl -- if you're unable...to Speak." - Agent Elrond signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Moving telnet/telnetd from base to pkgsrc
Date:Wed, 19 Dec 2018 08:06:19 +1030 From:Brett Lymn Message-ID: <20181218213619.gb1...@internode.on.net> | I don't do this personally but I think there are people out there that | have older, slower machines on their local network Aside from that, telnet is quite quitable for communicating between DomU's on the same Dom0, or between Dom0 and its DomU's (where the only mitm is the hypervisor...) kre
