New SCP? was Re: file name handling "bug" in scp?

[Chris Rapier]

Darren Tucker wrote:
> stdout azi wrote:
> 
>>OK, let me mention my issue  :-)
>>
>>$scp foo.pdf azi at foo.bar.com LALALALA
>>cp : cannot stat `azi at foo.bar.com': No such file or directory
> 
> 
> When scp is not given a hostname it falls back to behaving like cp and a 
> 3-arg cp works like that (although gnu cp checks that the destination is 
> a directory):

I guess this leads to the question: While SCP has always in the past 
fallen back to acting like cp because that is what rcp did, is this 
still necessary? I'm not, in anyway, suggesting that scp be 
fundamentally changed though. I'm just curious is there might be a place 
for something like 'scp2' (or 'scp+' or 'thatcrazynewwackytypeofscp'). 
I'm thinking of something that has similar functionality to scp but has 
enhanced functionality (parallel data streams, having a data and a 
control channel to handle multiple files more gracefully, etc etc etc). 
Any thoughts on this?