ietf-nntp Section 7.1 - GREETING step.
Stan O. Barber
sob at verio.net
Mon Jul 24 14:03:06 PDT 2000
David Riley wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:27:06PM -0500, Stan O. Barber wrote:
> > David Riley wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we should consider present the 200 greeting code if IHAVE transit
> > > ability is available on the server to the client. The response from MODE
> > > READER indicates specifically whether the user may use POST or not. I
> > > would suggest the text be changed to something along the lines of.
> > I am not sure if this is consistent with RFC977. Comments from others on this
> > are welcome.
> I don't think this is necessarily consisten, but I think it would be a
> beneficial change to make, which shouldn't be harmful -- all readers should
> be doing a "MODE READER" anyways.
It is part of the charter of the group to be consistent with RFC977 and to
MODE READER is not required by RFC977, so we can't require it either.
> > > Also, I can't seem to find older mailing list archives -- why was the 502
> > > on permission denied, changed to a 504? That does not seem to mimic
> > > existing practice.
> > See http://www.academ.com/academ/nntp/ietf/index.html for the archives.
> This archive is not uptodate. I think it lacks messages past November
Hmm. I will look into this. The whole archive is also available at this URL:
> Which leaves the original question -- why the change to 504?
It was not 504 in the previous draft, so it was either an editing mistake or
suggested by someone.
More information about the ietf-nntp