On Dec 14, 4:56am, co...@sdf.org wrote:
}
} The maintenance burden is as follows:
}
} - Y'all seem to think it's totally reasonable to telnet in the open
} internet
Nobody thinks it should be used in the open internet in any
situation where security is required, at least not without using
one of the secure authentication extensions.
} This means it begs for a rewrite
This statement is total nonsense. It works just fine. And,
it's not like there is a crap-ton of CVEs against it. In fact,
there have been almost none, which is pretty impressive considering
how old the code is.
} - You'd want some esoteric functionality preserved
You mean like the telnet protocol which can in no way be
described as esoteric?
} This means rewriting it isn't going to happen
Given that there is no particular reason for it to happen,
this isn't a problem. BTW, I wouldn't call rewriting it, "maintenance".
}-- End of excerpt from co...@sdf.org
