From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Mar 16 06:02:06 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id GAA09384 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 06:02:06 -0800
Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (root@UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id GAA09376 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 06:02:03 -0800
Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA03487
  (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for freebsd.org!hackers); Thu, 16 Mar 1995 07:46:33 -0600
Received: by bonkers.taronga.com (smail2.5p) id AA26206; 16 Mar 95 07:39:31 CST (Thu)
Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id HAA26203 for babkin@hq.icb.chel.su; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 07:39:30 -0600
From: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com>
Message-Id: <199503161339.HAA26203@bonkers.taronga.com>
Subject: Re: diskless and 3Com 509
To: hackers@FreeBSD.org
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 07:39:30 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <199503161634.LAA00431@hq.icb.chel.su> from "Serge A. Babkin" at Mar 16, 95 11:34:45 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 322       
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I've seen a lot of criticism of BSD-derived telnets because you can't use
them for Q&D smtp or nntp information snarfing because they exit on EOF.
Apparently USG-derived ones wait for the other end to shut down if stdin
is a plain file. I'd like some inputs on the pros and cons of copying the
USG behaviour in this case.