From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10686 invoked from network); 17 May 2000 21:46:20 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 17 May 2000 21:46:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 27123 invoked by alias); 17 May 2000 21:41:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 11449 Received: (qmail 27114 invoked from network); 17 May 2000 21:41:43 -0000 From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <000517144038.ZM23989@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 14:40:38 -0700 In-Reply-To: Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson "_telnet niggle" (May 17, 10:13pm) References: X-Mailer: Z-Mail Lite (5.0.0 30July97) To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk (Zsh hackers list) Subject: Re: _telnet niggle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 17, 10:13pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: > Subject: _telnet niggle > It's a small but non-zero niggle that _telnet doesn't use hosts-ports, just > users-hosts-ports. The most common usage for telnet in my experience is > not to specify the host on the command line, even if you give the port. Eh? In my experience, telnet won't let you specify a port without a host. > Consequently it probably ought to use hosts-ports if there is no user I agree with that.