Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!mit-hermes!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uiucuxe!alexandr
From: alexandr@uiucuxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Telnet, <CR><LF>, etc.
Message-ID: <64200003@uiucuxe>
Date: Wed, 5-Aug-87 20:51:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucuxe.64200003
Posted: Wed Aug  5 20:51:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Aug-87 09:27:38 EDT
Lines: 24
Nf-ID: #R:<8707311950.AA12026@opal.berkele:-38:uiucuxe:64200003:000:956
Nf-From: uiucuxe.cso.uiuc.edu!alexandr    Aug  5 19:51:00 1987


Sorry if this is too much UNIX for the rest of you...

Well, I think Greg has explained things very nicely.  Since he feels
that this is a UNIX related issue, let me toss my two cents in.

1)  Pty(4), like tty(4) has CRMOD.  Therefore, it can already map
	<CR> to <NL> for you.  in.telnetd should take advantage of this fact.

2)  Programs such as tip run in raw mode, expecting carriage returns,
	not line-feeds.  Therefore, it should always be easy to give
	them one.  Again, sending <CR> seems more reasonable.

Therefore, it seems to me that in.telnetd should always send a <CR>
to the pty unless the user explicitly sends an <LF>.  This seems to 
allow maximum compatibilty w/ existing software and other operating
systems.

-- Steve Alexander, Workstation Programmer,
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
stevea@lurch.ncsa.uiuc.edu
stevea%lurch@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
stevea@uiucvmd.bitnet
...!{ihnp4,convex,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!lurch!stevea