| 1 |
Mike Williams <mike@××××××××.uk> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sunday 28 December 2003 03:34, Jason Wever wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I don't believe our intention or goal is to proactively protect the user |
| 5 |
>> from their own possible stupidity. Telnet is still rather viable for |
| 6 |
>> things (think terminal servers) and has many applications where security |
| 7 |
>> may not be a concern. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Mostly, as an administrator/power user, telnet is an absolute must for testing |
| 10 |
> services. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Although people often tend to use and think of telnet as being |
| 13 |
plain-text, bare TCP, it really is a protocol, and so it would probably |
| 14 |
be best to use the far-more-useful-for-that-purpose netcat program |
| 15 |
(net-analyzer/netcat). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> The block-telnet with a virtual/telnet is a good idea. A simple 1 line reason |
| 18 |
> for the block printed when portage shows the block would make things even |
| 19 |
> better. |
| 20 |
> Yes, it's work for a dev, but if it saves a multitude of questions later isn't |
| 21 |
> it worth the effort now? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Adding a block-telnet package to the system class seems like an |
| 24 |
excessive amount of trouble to inconvenience users excessively. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives