[NNTP] Additions to LIST commands
rra at stanford.edu
Sat Nov 28 02:44:31 PST 2009
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <antti-juhani at kaijanaho.fi> writes:
> It occurs to me now that much more useful for that purpose is just to
> have a customized message along with the POST rejection. LIST ACTIVE is
> not going to be commonly checked, unless there's some what I'm
> forgetting for the client to request updates in the style of NEWGROUPS.
The drawback to reporting this with a POST rejection is that by the time
the client gets a POST rejection, the user has already spent a bunch of
time composing the post.
> And in any case, I'm a bit wary about adding unimplemented features in
> standards, even though a Proposed Standard is allowed them.
This is a good point. It might be best to stick with just the things INN
has already implemented for the Proposed Standard document and add
anything new in a separate document. It's more work and more writing, but
it's the more conservative standardization approach. The other document
can be on a different track (experimental, for instance) until the new
ideas prove themselves useful.
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the ietf-nntp