Path: utzoo!utgpu!CUNYVM!IBMTCP-L Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 12:43:19 EST Reply-To: IBM TCP/IP For VM List Sender: IBM TCP/IP For VM List From: Bruce Crabill <@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:BRUCE@UMDD.BITNET> Subject: Re: Options, one more time... X-To: James Van Bokkelen X-cc: TN3270@terminus.umd.edu, IBMTCP-L@cunyvm.cuny.edu, To: UofToronto LAN redistribution References: Message received on Tue, 20 Feb 90 12:25:48 EST Message-ID: <90Feb21.031853est.57572@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> Newsgroups: list.ibmtcp-l Distribution: ut Approved: devnull@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu But the problem is that Unix systems will currently say Yes to any client specified terminal type. You can TELNET into a Unix system specifying IBM-3278-2 and it will happily accept it. And looking thru the Host Requirements RFC and your RFC (RFC-1091), no where do I see where this practice has been declared illegal. Certainly it is the intention of your RFC that this should be so, but there is no requirement in the Host Requirements RFC that makes it required (or even a should). Even if such a requirement was put in, all we have to do is fix all the Unix TELNET servers in the world. Personally I find fixing the TN3270s more practical. Bruce