From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 13 15:14:17 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1275416A4CE for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:14:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from makeworld.com (makeworld.com [198.92.228.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B4E43D1D for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:14:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from racerx@makeworld.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.com [127.0.0.1]) by makeworld.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9646122 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:14:16 -0600 (CST) Received: from makeworld.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (makeworld.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 34385-05 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:14:14 -0600 (CST) Received: from [198.92.228.34] (racerx.makeworld.com [198.92.228.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by makeworld.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB3F6121 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:14:14 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <420F6ED9.8010301@makeworld.com> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:14:33 -0600 From: Chris User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050101) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20050213145302.14A9E4BDAA@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> <1736042877.20050213155911@wanadoo.fr> <420F6BAF.8060304@makeworld.com> <1374659210.20050213161054@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <1374659210.20050213161054@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by ClamAV 0.75.1/amavisd-new-2.2.1 (20041222) at makeworld.com - Isn't it ironic Subject: Re: WEIRD: telnet X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:14:17 -0000 Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Chris writes: > > >>Agreed - however, rethink using Telnet in favor of ssh. > > > I don't see how SSH would help when using telnet to connect to arbitrary > ports. > Leaving the ports issue out of it (or not) we need to tell him why Telnet is not a good thing... And that would be, Telnet passes clear text whereas ssh does not. Assuming he's setting up telnet on his device. Perhaps the user is just ignorant to what ssh is. -- Best regards, Chris There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over.