Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 08:53:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, Jeremie Le Hen <jlh@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: rtools were deemed almost unused 15 years ago... Message-ID: <201706221553.v5MFrCgM098459@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <43581.1498024805@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -------- > In message <20170621034106.GA27501@lonesome.com>, Mark Linimon writes: > >On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:36:37PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > >> Keep the telnet client. It's still heavily used for more things than > >> connecting to telnetd. > > > >e.g. dumb remote power controllers. > > > >nc blah 23 doesn't get me very far, am I missing a magic flag? > > No, you're missing TELNET option negotiations. nc -t well do that for you. (I only know this because I just went and read the man page for nc as someone mentioned it in this thread and I wanted to know if infact it supports telnet option negatiation.) But this does NOT mean I agree with removal of telnet/telnetd. Isnt this whole discussion kinda pointless if you consider this well be handle by packaged base? Those who want these in there systems can have them, and those that think telnet/ telnetd are a bigger security risk than nc can also remove them. > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201706221553.v5MFrCgM098459>