> That maybe correct. However, I thought it was normally the client that
> was configurable. The server sends what it wants. The client decides
> whether it should send CRLF or LF based on the user's preferences.
>> That maybe correct. However, I thought it was normally the client that
>> was configurable. The server sends what it wants. The client decides
>> whether it should send CRLF or LF based on the user's preferences.
>
> I don't think there are any established protocols that actually define
I don't think there are either. I just recalled that Telnet did it one
way, and suggested that also might be appropriate.
Well, for Telnet, I think there really is an established protocol, as
well as a POSIX standard. But that's different issue. The OP can come
up with what works best for him. "Works like Telnet" is not a standard.
Thinking about this a bit more, if the server is extended to compensate
for any locale, that could be a lot of resources required on the server
which may have many connections. If the server implements one standard,
and each client translates to it's own locale, that seems easier to me,
and also taxes the server much less. Just a couple of nickels....
> things that way (and why should the user have any preferences in this
> specific matter, except that it should work as advertised). Usually
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> principle at both ends of every connection: be conservative in what
> you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.