[NNTP] Misc changes

[Charles Lindsey]

In <0c81f6cdd3c0fa68bfeb285156dc804b at litech.org> "Jeffrey M. Vinocur" <jeff at litech.org> writes:

>On Apr 26, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Charles Lindsey <chl at clerew.man.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>>> I don't like the idea of making NEWNEWS optional.

>Can you say why this is, concretely?

Because I use it, and get annoyed by servers that don't provide it. So I
would still like to be able to accuse such servers of non-compliance :-( .

>>> could we say "The NEWNEWS command SHOULD be provided"?
>>
>> I have kind of a bleh feeling about that, since we don't say that about
>> other things that are even more core to the protocol (POST, for 
>> instance).

>I agree with Russ here.  It's not a protocol issue by any means, and 
>since we all know that some servers aren't going to provide it no 
>matter what we say, client authors are still going to have to consider 
>that possibility (and work around it or accept reduced functionality).

>I would be fine with the document making an advisory statement to 
>implementors that encourages implementation of NEWNEWS (and explains 
>that it became optional only because, in the past, it was woefully 
>inefficient).

Yes, I could go along with that.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5