| gabriel rosenkoetter on Thu, 4 Apr 2002 21:50:19 +0200 |
|
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 12:45:46PM -0500, ian reinhart geiser wrote: > ssh is the best bet for me since it at least has compression. No, it really isn't, because it wastes a tremendous amount of processor on compression and adds to the over head in the pipe. You want to use rsh, as I've been saying since the beginning. If it can't be transfered in the clear, pgp encrypt it. If it has to be compressed (why? won't you just have to decompresson on the far end) pipe it through gzip (and out zcat at the far end?). > so my options are ssh or netcat, where netcat is only installed on my box, i > would have to install it locally on the other box to use it. What's wrong with rsh? It is the fastest transport you can get. (Use a .rhosts file to avoid sending your password across the wire and tcp_wrappers to keep anyone but you from connecting to the remote host.) -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpkPSsbmHd8Y.pgp
|
|