Hello Michel,

  MS> Considering the apparent lack of concern from authors/SysOps on
    > who the BBSers depended for their SoftWare when the whole BBS
    > community went thru the ~TelNet~ transition, euh...

What telnet transition? Telnet is just another way to get a connection into
a BBS.  I imagine that on many systems the BBS software does not even need
to know that telnet is involved, it's just another tty.

  MS> Pardon my negativism but it's not tempting to leave such people
    > too much ground so that this adventure is repeated in the same
    > exclusive fashion again!

After reading this paragraph several times I /think/ I understand what you
were trying to say. If you try to use English more simply, you may end up
with more readable results (this is something that I have to remind myself
at times too).

  MS> I'd make the UpGrade Path INCLUSIVE.  I'm thinking of a scheme
    > like ~POP3~ before ~SMTP~...

Please explain that. Do you mean that you would have the user retrieve
messages from your BBS using the POP3 protocol, and post their replies via
SMTP?

  MS> ...but with a twist;  i'd keep ~TelNet~ but require my LEGACY
    > users to validate using ~SSH~ and then grant ~TelNet~ access
    > only after the ~IP~ address is approved...

That would not work for the many, many people who are assigned IP addresses
dynamically (not just dial-up users, but also many DSL customers).

  MS> I can live with innovations since ~TelNet~ can be secure enough
    > if combined with ~SSH~/~HTTPS~

SSH supercedes telnet for applications where security is a concern.
Combining them is odd.

  MS> ...i might even imagine other ways to adapt plain old ~TelNet~
    > sessions without any newer protocols (via additionnal security
    > macros/utilities, perhaps?)...

Why reinvent the wheel?

- Andy Ball

 * SLMR 2.1a *

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 # Origin: FamilyNet Sponsored by http://www.christian-wellness.net (8:8/2)