[NNTP] Re: Issue with IHAVE in RFC
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at davros.org
Sat Apr 18 02:08:54 PDT 2009
Julien LIE said:
> I believe there is a major issue with the handling of the 501 answer code.
> According to RFC 3977, the following schema is correct:
> [S] IHAVE <a b c
> [C] 501 Bad Message-ID
> However, it breaks at least INN and Diablo: upon receiving 501, their
> feeder will block, disconnect, reconnect and send again the same IHAVE...
Then they are wrong.
> Thus, implementing RFC 3977 breaks current implementations.
I disagree. If you look at RFC 977, section 2.4.3, you will see the same
rule: a syntax error in *any* command results in a 501.
> Of course, the same goes if I send a message-ID whose length is 251
> (which could more likely occur than "<a b c").
> As for IHAVE, the only possible answer here is 435; on no account
> should 501 be sent.
I disagree. 435 means "not wanted", not "invalid syntax".
> It appears that a few commands require that no check is done on their
> syntax, and it is not mentioned in RFC 3977.
Nor is it mentioned in RFC 977, nor was it *EVER* mentioned in many years
of discussion leading up to 3977.
> A discussion on news.software.nntp led to the fact that 501 is
> not a valid answer. See for instance
> <20090410161411.260$qR at newsreader.com>.
I will look at that.
> Do you have an idea of what it is possible to do as for that issue?
Not easily. You need to decide if you want to work with broken software.
Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: clive at davros.org | it will get its revenge.
Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer
Mobile: +44 7973 377646
More information about the ietf-nntp