Re: putty's telnet.c fix
From: Ben Harris (bjharris_at_chiark.greenend.org.uk)
Date: 08/22/05
- Previous message: dwalin: "putty's telnet.c fix"
- In reply to: dwalin: "putty's telnet.c fix"
- Next in thread: dwalin: "Re: putty's telnet.c fix"
- Reply: dwalin: "Re: putty's telnet.c fix"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 22 Aug 2005 13:07:54 +0100 (BST)
In article <1124706233.892014.112040@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
dwalin <dwalin@dwalin.ru> wrote:
>there's a bug in the most recent version (r5512) of telnet.c. while the
>latest patch may have fixed something, i have a telnetd here that is
>not compatible with it. this telnetd sends WONT for TELOPT_LIMEMODE
>(34) and expects WONT back, otherwise hangs and disconnects after the
>timeout.
That's mad. Sending WON'T for an option that's already disabled (as
LINEMODE must be, since PuTTY doesn't support it) is pointless. PuTTY is
correct in not replying to it, since doing so is banned by RFC 854, and has
caused negotiation loops in the past. Even if PuTTY were to reply, the only
reasonable reply would be DON'T, not WON'T. It's true that PuTTY used to
have a bug whereby it would reply to WON'T with WON'T, simply because we
hadn't considered the possibility that a server might send us WON'T for an
option that was already disabled. We fixed that bug, and we're not likely
to take the fix out again to please your server.
-- Ben Harris
- Previous message: dwalin: "putty's telnet.c fix"
- In reply to: dwalin: "putty's telnet.c fix"
- Next in thread: dwalin: "Re: putty's telnet.c fix"
- Reply: dwalin: "Re: putty's telnet.c fix"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
