From owner-freebsd-bugs Wed Jan 16 19:30: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065B837B417 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:30:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0H3U1N04813; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:30:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:30:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200201170330.g0H3U1N04813@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: "Tim J. Robbins" Subject: Re: bin/33971: finger could check if T/TCP is disabled and imply -T Reply-To: "Tim J. Robbins" Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR bin/33971; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Tim J. Robbins" To: Garrett Wollman Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bin/33971: finger could check if T/TCP is disabled and imply -T Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:21:43 +1100 On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 09:38:02PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote: > Your suggestion is bogus. As the manual page clearly indicates, the > presence or absence of Transaction TCP support is not relevant to > what the finger client does. (In fact, even when T/TCP was supported > by default, finger was not able to use it because the finger protocol > requires that the server close the connection first.) Perhaps I misunderstood. Anyway, finger'ing a host that doesn't run fingerd takes longer to give an error than it should. Apparently T/TCP was an experiment that failed because it was insecure, and because nobody else showed much interest in it. It strikes me as stupid to inconvenience those not using T/TCP when they are in the majority. Tim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message