}> 2) Domestic is worthless anyway. Who wants 1DES based Kerb IV anyway?

Unless and until we have Kerb 5, I'll continue using Kerb IV... I'd
like it to continue working.

}So why is this "broken" implementation still in the tree then?  It
}claims to be "supported", but doesn't appear to work except with a
}couple clients.  The kerberos samples in inetd.conf show '-k' options
}to both rshd and rlogind that don't exist, and I haven't been able
}to get telnetd to do anything with kerberos.

I use encrypted (kerberized) telnet both to and from my various
NetBSD boxes, and it works quite well.  I also use kerberos passwords
on some of them, it works just fine.  I don't use rsh or rlogin, so
I don't see problems with them.

}All in all, it seems like it doesn't work, and I haven't heard anyone
}refuting the claims that it is "worthless."  

I use it regularly.  I find it a benefit.

Tracy J. Di Marco White
Project Vincent Systems Manager
gendalia@iastate.edu