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) .