[Info-vax] Reverse telnet to a terminal emulator?

[Richard B. Gilbert]

On 7/19/2011 8:15 PM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article<6vydndeS6KzQhbvTnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d at giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilbert88 at comcast.net>  writes:
>> On 7/19/2011 3:40 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 7/19/2011 7:47 AM, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>>> In article<j02l2e$2ha$1 at speranza.aioe.org>, Snowshoe<no at spam.please>
>>>> writes:
>>>>> Is there any such thing as VTxxx-compatible terminal server software
>>>>> that runs on a PC that, instead of actively connecting to a host via
>>>>> telnet, is "passive", it waits until something connects to it? Once a
>>>>> host connects to it, it acts like a regular VTxxx terminal. My idea is
>>>>
>>>> There are some here, myself included, would argue that there is no
>>>> PeeCee software that acts like a regulat VT terminal.
>>>
>>> Probably not.
>>>
>>> Emulation is usually just close to 100% compatible.
>>>
>>> But there are plenty of products that are usable for most
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>> And some that pretty good. Reflection is pretty good in my
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>
>> In my opinion also!  It's almost as expensive as a terminal implemented
>> in hardware.  ISTR paying something in the $400-$500 range.  The
>> emulation may not be perfect but I haven't found any problems in casual
>> use.  I used it mostly to log into systems at work when I got a trouble
>> call.
>>
>> My employer used Reflection in lieu of VT240 terminals.  I don't recall
>> that we ever found anything the a VT240 could do and that Reflection
>> could not.  The emulation may have been less than perfect but we were
>> able to do everything we needed to do.
>
> Funny.  Reflection is one of the emulations I've been trying to get fixed
> for ages.  I, myself, don't use it but customers did and the problems that
> it caused would drive a teetotaler to the sauce.
>
> My latest quixotic venture has been tilting at the PowerTerm windmill.  I
> still can't get Ericom to even supply me with a proper emulation that will
> permit an 'ssh' login, let alone properly emulate a VT.  For the $250.00,
> they've just brushed me off.

I never had a problem with it that I can recall although I was NOT 
"stress testing it".  The version I have is eight to ten years old and I 
don't recall using it since about August 2004.