Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip:12547 comp.windows.x:25649
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mstar!mstar.morningstar.com!bob
From: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Magic cookies over Telnet
Message-ID: <BOB.90Aug13092242@volitans.MorningStar.Com>
Date: 13 Aug 90 13:22:51 GMT
References: <2432@dino.cs.iastate.edu> <12461@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Sender: usenet@MorningStar.COM (USENET Administrator)
Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield)
Followup-To: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Organization: Morning Star Technologies
Lines: 18
In-Reply-To: gs26@prism.gatech.EDU's message of 12 Aug 90 16:43:36 GMT

In article <12461@hydra.gatech.EDU> gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) writes:
   In <2432@dino.cs.iastate.edu> hascall@cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:
      What I was thinking of doing was passing the magic-cookie
      [DISPLAY variable] to the remote-end through another Telnet
      option.  Has anyone else thought about/done this (I didn't find
      a RFC)?

   This smells more like what rlogin does...  Telnet doesn't need to
   be passing environment variables, since I might be telnetting to a
   VMS machine, or a CYBER...

Please don't use rlogin, which is a BSD-centric UNIXism, as a basis
for anything.  Instead, look at RFC1091 terminal type negotiation.
The client might look at the environment to decide how to negotiate,
but it shouldn't assume that the server knows or cares what an
environment is.  Clients on "environment"less machines should know
other ways to find out what terminal types they're to claim to
support.