ietf-nntp Backfill

[Nat Ballou]

> From: Clive D.W. Feather <Clive at on-the-train.demon.co.uk>
> To: Jon Ribbens <jon at oaktree.co.uk>
> Cc: clive at demon.net; ietf-nntp at academ.com
> Subject: Re: ietf-nntp Backfill
> Date: Saturday, December 14, 1996 4:09 PM
> 
> [...]
>
> >> A sensible client needs to allow for the user wanting to mark articles
> >> as unread. Therefore it must be able to cope with the backfilling
> >> strategy, by (for example) maintaining a list of ranges.
> >No. An unread article and an unavailable article are not the same
> >thing.
> 
> Any mechanism for passing the concept "article 1234 is unread" between
> session can equally cope with passing the concept "article 1234 hasn't
> appeared yet". That's what I meant.
> 
> >> Given this, there seems little reason to require that servers be
> >> monotonic.
> >Given that almost every news client in existance requires that
> >servers be monotonic, I would suggest that it would be a very
> >good idea for the new NNTP specification to require it too.
> 
> Yet several people at the BOF thought that backfilling was reasonable.

I did not hear any server people state that backfilling was reasonable
behavior.  On the contrary, most server implementors thought this was a 
bug in some implementation.  

I'd like to know exactly what server supports backfilling today.
If nobody responds, I propose we close this issue and move on.
We have bigger fish to fry.

Nat