> > On 2015/11/13 09:59, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > > I really want to delete telnet entirely, > > > > > > > > I often use it for testing unencrypted SMTP and HTTP across the > > > > Internet. Which tool would you recommend for that purpose? > > > > > > nc(1). > > I use telnet fairly often for connecting to things like crappy switches, > > crappy routers, APs of varying crappiness, etc. nc -t isn't close to being > > good enough for this, also with nc it's difficult to send things like ^C > > (even worse, if you use it much you forget about this and end up killing > > your connection). I wouldn't mind having it removed from base, but would > > need to go in ports unless nc gets a lot of polishing. > > I always thought of telnet as a kind of discipline over the wire. There are > even extensions (like RFC 2217) well-fitting discipline model.
Like a horse buggy in the inside lane of a 4-lane highway, there are going to fatalities. "discipline" applies to the user of this code -- it means "avoid any and all unnecessary use". > >From other hand, nc(1) is a "raw" tool with decent client-server model. > > Is there any possibility to run nc(1) as a privsep server, and a telnet(1) as > a client, talking to nc(1) server via IMSG (instead of doing network stuff > directly)? What's the goal. To continue the lifetime of telne? To make the nc code more complicated and fragile? Those are the only outcomes I see.
