On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 20:53 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-05-13 20:27:03 +0200, Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri 12 May 2006, Matt McCutchen wrote: > > > > Wayne beat me to it. But I was going to say, you might be able to write > > > > a wrapper script that sends the rsync command and arguments down the > > > > telnet connection for the shell to execute and discards any extra output > > > > produced by the shell while logging in (to avoid the mystifying "is your > > > > shell clean?" message). For instance, if you know the shell on the > > > > > > Don't forget also that there is actually such a thing as a telnet > > > protocol, so a telnet session probably won't give you a real clean > > > connection, some combination of special bytes may trigger telnet to do > > > unexpected things instead of passing the data on transparently. > > > > > > Is there no way of using rsh in your kerberos-ized situation? > > > > Well, ignoring the protocol-specific extensions, I'd think of some > > kind of expect(1) wrapped telnet client to do the login and > > command-sending stuff... > > > > Though that's all a crude workaround. Why don't you just use ssh, > > which is nicely (via GSSAPI) kerberized? > > ssh isn't always an option. E.g. to reach HP's testdrive machines, > telnet is the only available option. > > I've done rsync over telnet, in binary mode and with the terminal set > to raw, using Perl and the Perl Net::Telnet module, and it mostly > worked but there were sometimes errors.
netcat ( nc(1) ) should bypass the telnet protocol issues. -- To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
