Subj : Telnet Vs SSH
To : Michel Samson
From : Andy Ball
Date : Thu Oct 28 2004 02:36 am
Hello Michel,
MS> Considering the apparent lack of concern from authors/SysOps on
> who the BBSers depended for their SoftWare when the whole BBS
> community went thru the ~TelNet~ transition, euh...
What telnet transition? Telnet is just another way to get a connection into a
BBS. I imagine that on many systems the BBS software does not even need to
know that telnet is involved, it's just another tty.
MS> Pardon my negativism but it's not tempting to leave such people
> too much ground so that this adventure is repeated in the same
> exclusive fashion again!
After reading this paragraph several times I /think/ I understand what you were
trying to say. If you try to use English more simply, you may end up with more
readable results (this is something that I have to remind myself at times too).
MS> I'd make the UpGrade Path INCLUSIVE. I'm thinking of a scheme
> like ~POP3~ before ~SMTP~...
Please explain that. Do you mean that you would have the user retrieve messages
from your BBS using the POP3 protocol, and post their replies via SMTP?
MS> ...but with a twist; i'd keep ~TelNet~ but require my LEGACY
> users to validate using ~SSH~ and then grant ~TelNet~ access
> only after the ~IP~ address is approved...
That would not work for the many, many people who are assigned IP addresses
dynamically (not just dial-up users, but also many DSL customers).
MS> I can live with innovations since ~TelNet~ can be secure enough
> if combined with ~SSH~/~HTTPS~
SSH supercedes telnet for applications where security is a concern. Combining
them is odd.
MS> ...i might even imagine other ways to adapt plain old ~TelNet~
> sessions without any newer protocols (via additionnal security
> macros/utilities, perhaps?)...
Why reinvent the wheel?
- Andy Ball
* SLMR 2.1a *
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
# Origin: FamilyNet Sponsored by
http://www.christian-wellness.net (8:8/2)
* Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)
