[NNTP] Status and issue resolutions
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at demon.net
Fri May 20 01:00:56 PDT 2005
Ade Lovett said:
>> At present, the *intended* differences are:
>> * LISTGROUP generates a multiline block after the initial 211 response
>> (nobody was comfortable, way back when, with using a different
> This is the bit I don't like.
I agree. But, as I said, nobody (else) was happy with changing the
> Essentially there are now five different ways for a client to "enter"
> a newsgroup, getting different returned information:
> GROUP foo
> GROUP (whilst in foo)
> LISTGROUP (whilst in foo)
> LISTGROUP foo
> LISTGROUP foo low-high
> This strikes me as conceptually wrong.
> To my mind, done "right", the
> GROUP command would be marked as going-away, with LISTGROUP (perhaps
> even LIST GROUP [<name> [<range>]],
> though this would require
> extending LIST a little bit more) taking over completely.
Meanwhile I'm thinking that extending GROUP would be a better way to go.
If I were starting from scratch, I would have something like:
ENTERGROUP (group|".") [range]]
"." means the current group
specifying a range produces multi-line output (with a different code)
GROUP = ENTERGROUP .
GROUP foo = ENTERGROUP foo
LISTGROUP = ENTERGROUP . 1- ) but with a
LISTGROUP foo = ENTERGROUP foo 1- ) different
LISTGROUP foo 234-567 = ENTERGROUP foo 234-567 ) response code
> There is also the issue now that a client needs to figure out whether
> the "211" returned is now merely a single-line response (from GROUP),
> or the start of a multi-line response (from LISTGROUP). Such
> overloading feels somewhat unclean.
However, just to clear my worries, do you see any *unintended* differences
between the present two specifications?
Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive at demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert | Home: <clive at davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc | |
More information about the ietf-nntp